Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

View: New views
10 Messages — Rating Filter:   Alert me  

Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

by Ron Ausbrooks :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

The Math Working Group has reviewed the current drafts of the CDF documents:

·         WICD Core 1.0

·         Compound Document by Reference Framework 1.0

·         WICD Full 1.0

·         WICD Mobile 1.0

We remain concerned that the issues raised in The Math Interest Group's comments posted by David Carlisle on January 27 haven’t been addressed. The most critical issue with regard to MathML in compound documents is the lack of support for aligning the baseline of child elements with that of enclosing text, or even mandating that width and height be made available in communication between parent and child documents. We would wish for the ability for child elements to take part in line breaking as well, but that’s less crucial.

The Compound Document profiles and recommendations have an excellent opportunity to address these issues, in keeping with the following requirement from the Compound Document Use Cases and Requirements Version 2.0:

·         3.2.3.3 CDI WICD Core MUST define layout semantics across elements from varying namespace boundaries

CDI WICD Profiles must describe layout behavior in a way that is meaningful when various component languages interact. CDF may define a vocabulary that specifications can use to describe the information that layout algorithms need from or provide to parent or child objects in another document format. Examples of parameters that parent elements need to provide to child elements are width and height.

It would seem that child objects – like inline MathML – which produce content that is “text-like” need to have the ability to participate in the layout flow of the surrounding text. For the implementation rendering the child document to have access to the available width and height, or the ability to provide its intrinsic width and height to the parent, is the minimal requirement, but this doesn't seem to be explicitly mandated anywhere in the recommendations. And while the intrinsic width and height are sufficient to handle layout problems for many image objects, they don’t provide enough communication for good layout of math. Mathematics can contain subscripts and superscripts of arbitrary size and complexity, large operators, fractions, matrices, and any combination of these; there are established standards for properly laying all of these out, but they generally require knowledge of the baseline. In particular, the baseline of the math needs to be aligned with the baseline of the ambient text. While CSS can be used to request positioning the math at the baseline, CSS doesn't currently contemplate a baseline for replaced content, so the result of baseline alignment is to align the bottom of the replaced math with the surrounding baseline. Even if the CSS assumptions can be changed, a containing application can’t align the ambient baseline with the math baseline if only the width and height of the math are communicated. (This wouldn't seem to be an issue solely for MathML. Other content types, such as musical notation or chemical diagrams, XForms objects, bibliographic content, or indeed Ruby markup if it hadn't been incorporated into the XHTML namespace, may also produce replaced content which should be rendered inline, and which would need baseline information for correct layout.)

Similarly, mathematical expressions can reach nearly arbitrary length, and math layout engines typically allow for linebreaking within math. A method to allow negotiation of linebreaking between a child object and a parent would thus be very desirable – and again, this would seem to be potentially useful for other types of content.

CSS can be used to handle some of these issues in some situations, and current browsers (as David indicated previously) have provided ad hoc solutions (or even added native MathML layout support). But a general and consistent solution to the problems of layout negotiation between components and parents needs the child’s intrinsic height and width to begin with, and baseline information as well. And even if we succeed in getting improved CSS support for baseline alignment (that is, getting CSS to allow for a baseline as a property of even replaced content), mechanisms for passing these between child and parent documents need to be mandated in order for the CSS to be properly implemented, especially in situations where a plugin is used to render the child.

We’d very much appreciate your consideration of these issues.

Thanks,

Ron Ausbrooks

Writing on behalf of the Math Working Group

 


Re: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

by Steve K Speicher :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Ron, David and Math IG,

Thanks for your comments to the CDF drafts.  Regarding your comments on
the usage of MathML and layout issues, we do not plan to address these in
our work package 1 items of compound documents by reference.  We do not
prevent future CDF profile creators to specify this.  The CDF WG may
investigate this issue in future work.  As it stands for now, the next
work package will provide a framework for compounding by inclusion but
there is not a plan to also deliver a MathML based profile with it.  The
CDF WG would encourage the Math WG to propose a solution for us to
consider.

Please let us know within two weeks if this does not satisfy your
comments.

Regards,
Steve Speicher on behalf of the CDF WG

Also in reply to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2006Jan/0069.html

"Ron Ausbrooks" <ron.ausbrooks@...> wrote on 09/20/2006 09:44:11
PM:

> The Math Working Group has reviewed the current drafts of the CDF
documents:

> ·         WICD Core 1.0
> ·         Compound Document by Reference Framework 1.0
> ·         WICD Full 1.0
> ·         WICD Mobile 1.0
> We remain concerned that the issues raised in The Math Interest
> Group's comments posted by David Carlisle on January 27 haven’t been
> addressed. The most critical issue with regard to MathML in compound
> documents is the lack of support for aligning the baseline of child
> elements with that of enclosing text, or even mandating that width
> and height be made available in communication between parent and
> child documents. We would wish for the ability for child elements to
> take part in line breaking as well, but that’s less crucial.
> The Compound Document profiles and recommendations have an excellent
> opportunity to address these issues, in keeping with the following
> requirement from the Compound Document Use Cases and Requirements
Version 2.0

> :
> ·         3.2.3.3 CDI WICD Core MUST define layout semantics across
> elements from varying namespace boundaries
> CDI WICD Profiles must describe layout behavior in a way that is
> meaningful when various component languages interact. CDF may define
> a vocabulary that specifications can use to describe the information
> that layout algorithms need from or provide to parent or child
> objects in another document format. Examples of parameters that
> parent elements need to provide to child elements are width and height.
> It would seem that child objects – like inline MathML – which
> produce content that is “text-like” need to have the ability to
> participate in the layout flow of the surrounding text. For the
> implementation rendering the child document to have access to the
> available width and height, or the ability to provide its intrinsic
> width and height to the parent, is the minimal requirement, but this
> doesn't seem to be explicitly mandated anywhere in the
> recommendations. And while the intrinsic width and height are
> sufficient to handle layout problems for many image objects, they
> don’t provide enough communication for good layout of math.
> Mathematics can contain subscripts and superscripts of arbitrary
> size and complexity, large operators, fractions, matrices, and any
> combination of these; there are established standards for properly
> laying all of these out, but they generally require knowledge of the
> baseline. In particular, the baseline of the math needs to be
> aligned with the baseline of the ambient text. While CSS can be used
> to request positioning the math at the baseline, CSS doesn't
> currently contemplate a baseline for replaced content, so the result
> of baseline alignment is to align the bottom of the replaced math
> with the surrounding baseline. Even if the CSS assumptions can be
> changed, a containing application can’t align the ambient baseline
> with the math baseline if only the width and height of the math are
> communicated. (This wouldn't seem to be an issue solely for MathML.
> Other content types, such as musical notation or chemical diagrams,
> XForms objects, bibliographic content, or indeed Ruby markup if it
> hadn't been incorporated into the XHTML namespace, may also produce
> replaced content which should be rendered inline, and which would
> need baseline information for correct layout.)
> Similarly, mathematical expressions can reach nearly arbitrary
> length, and math layout engines typically allow for linebreaking
> within math. A method to allow negotiation of linebreaking between a
> child object and a parent would thus be very desirable – and again,
> this would seem to be potentially useful for other types of content.
> CSS can be used to handle some of these issues in some situations,
> and current browsers (as David indicated previously) have provided
> ad hoc solutions (or even added native MathML layout support). But a
> general and consistent solution to the problems of layout
> negotiation between components and parents needs the child’s
> intrinsic height and width to begin with, and baseline information
> as well. And even if we succeed in getting improved CSS support for
> baseline alignment (that is, getting CSS to allow for a baseline as
> a property of even replaced content), mechanisms for passing these
> between child and parent documents need to be mandated in order for
> the CSS to be properly implemented, especially in situations where a
> plugin is used to render the child.
> We’d very much appreciate your consideration of these issues.
> Thanks,
> Ron Ausbrooks
> Writing on behalf of the Math Working Group
>

RE: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

by Ron Ausbrooks :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message


Steve, and the CDF WG,

Thank you for your response to the Math WG's comments. Unfortunately, we
don't feel that our concerns are adequately addressed by it.

We'd be happy to contribute to a MathML-based profile based on the
compound-by-inclusion framework. However, MathML may also appear as a child
document by reference (via an <object>), and we don't feel that the current
draft provides the necessary support. While restricting consideration of
layout issues to scalable elements is fine for the SVG-centered profile
documents (WICD Full and WICD Mobile), it seems inappropriate for a general
compound document framework. Some brief discussion of layout negotiation for
objects which are not scalable should appear in the WICD Core document, or
perhaps even in the Document Object Model section of the CDR Framework
document.

Our specific suggestion is to include a specification like the following:
  "The Document Object Model for a child document SHOULD make available to
the parent methods to return the width, height and depth (or 'baseline
offset') of the child content."
Such a stipulation would codify handling of <object> that has been supported
already by some user agents, and has allowed scripting to provide reasonable
display of inline MathML. On the other hand, we see publication of these
recommendations without such a provision as implying a step backward.

We don't believe that leaving such considerations for a MathML-based profile
is the best course, as we don't believe they apply only to MathML. Any child
document which gives rise to text-like content needs the same sort of
support.

If you believe that a provision of this sort is beyond the scope of these
recommendations, then it seems that that scope excludes essential
interoperability requirements of MathML objects (and other text-like
objects). We feel that you should in this case remove mention of support for
MathML and examples of MathML from them for now, as in our opinion these are
currently misleading. In particular, the section delineating the scope of
the CDR Framework document includes the text:
  "While it is clearly meant to serve as the basis for integrating W3C's
family of XML formats within its Interaction Domain (e.g., CSS, MathML, ..."
We believe that it's misleading to imply that the Framework as currently
written is usable for a wide variety of languages, and specifically for
MathML.

In any event, we ask that layout (size) negotiation for text-like child
documents be added as a formal requirement for the Compound Document by
Inclusion work. We would suggest that the CDR Framework document explicitly
state that automatic size negotiation between parent and child is not
currently supported by CDR but will be addressed in CDI; this negotiation
should then include access to the baseline of child content.

Thanks very much for your consideration.

Ron Ausbrooks on behalf of the Math Working Group




RE: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

by Steve K Speicher :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message


Ron,

For the record, the CDF WG has resolved not to make any changes in the
current referenced public drafts regarding this issue.   The WG does not
feel we can define the adequate level of specification needed given the
timeframe and scope with the current drafts.  The WG has recorded your
disagreement with this resolution.

This does not prohibit anyone from defining extensions or profiles that
include MathML or introducing the capabilities that you have outlined.  We
have left the issue open internally and will attempt to continue to
collaborate on a solution to this issue in future works.

Thanks for your feedback,
Steve Speicher
On behalf of the CDF WG

"Ron Ausbrooks" <ron.ausbrooks@...> wrote on 11/14/2006 01:34:33
AM:

>
> Steve, and the CDF WG,
>
> Thank you for your response to the Math WG's comments. Unfortunately, we
> don't feel that our concerns are adequately addressed by it.
>
> We'd be happy to contribute to a MathML-based profile based on the
> compound-by-inclusion framework. However, MathML may also appear as a
child
> document by reference (via an <object>), and we don't feel that the
current
> draft provides the necessary support. While restricting consideration of
> layout issues to scalable elements is fine for the SVG-centered profile
> documents (WICD Full and WICD Mobile), it seems inappropriate for a
general
> compound document framework. Some brief discussion of layout negotiation
for
> objects which are not scalable should appear in the WICD Core document,
or
> perhaps even in the Document Object Model section of the CDR Framework
> document.
>
> Our specific suggestion is to include a specification like the
following:
>   "The Document Object Model for a child document SHOULD make available
to
> the parent methods to return the width, height and depth (or 'baseline
> offset') of the child content."
> Such a stipulation would codify handling of <object> that has been
supported
> already by some user agents, and has allowed scripting to provide
reasonable
> display of inline MathML. On the other hand, we see publication of these
> recommendations without such a provision as implying a step backward.
>
> We don't believe that leaving such considerations for a MathML-based
profile
> is the best course, as we don't believe they apply only to MathML. Any
child
> document which gives rise to text-like content needs the same sort of
> support.
>
> If you believe that a provision of this sort is beyond the scope of
these
> recommendations, then it seems that that scope excludes essential
> interoperability requirements of MathML objects (and other text-like
> objects). We feel that you should in this case remove mention of support
for
> MathML and examples of MathML from them for now, as in our opinion these
are
> currently misleading. In particular, the section delineating the scope
of
> the CDR Framework document includes the text:
>   "While it is clearly meant to serve as the basis for integrating W3C's
> family of XML formats within its Interaction Domain (e.g., CSS, MathML,
..."
> We believe that it's misleading to imply that the Framework as currently
> written is usable for a wide variety of languages, and specifically for
> MathML.
>
> In any event, we ask that layout (size) negotiation for text-like child
> documents be added as a formal requirement for the Compound Document by
> Inclusion work. We would suggest that the CDR Framework document
explicitly
> state that automatic size negotiation between parent and child is not
> currently supported by CDR but will be addressed in CDI; this
negotiation
> should then include access to the baseline of child content.
>
> Thanks very much for your consideration.
>
> Ron Ausbrooks on behalf of the Math Working Group
>
>
>



RE: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

by Steve K Speicher :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message


To be more specific on how this is being tracked:

Since this was originally marked as a disagree from the first LC and then
it was reraised during our second LC, we are not tracking it as 2
disagrees.  Only the one [1] against the first LC for comments.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher

[1] See LC1-104 in
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/2006/LC_Comments/CDRFWICDLC.xml

I wrote on 01/03/2007 01:58:07 PM:

>
> Ron,
>
> For the record, the CDF WG has resolved not to make any changes in the
> current referenced public drafts regarding this issue.   The WG does not

> feel we can define the adequate level of specification needed given the
> timeframe and scope with the current drafts.  The WG has recorded your
> disagreement with this resolution.
>
> This does not prohibit anyone from defining extensions or profiles that
> include MathML or introducing the capabilities that you have outlined.
We
> have left the issue open internally and will attempt to continue to
> collaborate on a solution to this issue in future works.
>
> Thanks for your feedback,
> Steve Speicher
> On behalf of the CDF WG
>
> "Ron Ausbrooks" <ron.ausbrooks@...> wrote on 11/14/2006
01:34:33
> AM:
>
> >
> > Steve, and the CDF WG,
> >
> > Thank you for your response to the Math WG's comments. Unfortunately,
we
> > don't feel that our concerns are adequately addressed by it.
> >
> > We'd be happy to contribute to a MathML-based profile based on the
> > compound-by-inclusion framework. However, MathML may also appear as a
> child
> > document by reference (via an <object>), and we don't feel that the
> current
> > draft provides the necessary support. While restricting consideration
of
> > layout issues to scalable elements is fine for the SVG-centered
profile
> > documents (WICD Full and WICD Mobile), it seems inappropriate for a
> general
> > compound document framework. Some brief discussion of layout
negotiation
> for
> > objects which are not scalable should appear in the WICD Core
document,
> or
> > perhaps even in the Document Object Model section of the CDR Framework
> > document.
> >
> > Our specific suggestion is to include a specification like the
> following:
> >   "The Document Object Model for a child document SHOULD make
available
> to
> > the parent methods to return the width, height and depth (or 'baseline
> > offset') of the child content."
> > Such a stipulation would codify handling of <object> that has been
> supported
> > already by some user agents, and has allowed scripting to provide
> reasonable
> > display of inline MathML. On the other hand, we see publication of
these
> > recommendations without such a provision as implying a step backward.
> >
> > We don't believe that leaving such considerations for a MathML-based
> profile
> > is the best course, as we don't believe they apply only to MathML. Any

> child
> > document which gives rise to text-like content needs the same sort of
> > support.
> >
> > If you believe that a provision of this sort is beyond the scope of
> these
> > recommendations, then it seems that that scope excludes essential
> > interoperability requirements of MathML objects (and other text-like
> > objects). We feel that you should in this case remove mention of
support
> for
> > MathML and examples of MathML from them for now, as in our opinion
these
> are
> > currently misleading. In particular, the section delineating the scope

> of
> > the CDR Framework document includes the text:
> >   "While it is clearly meant to serve as the basis for integrating
W3C's
> > family of XML formats within its Interaction Domain (e.g., CSS,
MathML,
> ..."
> > We believe that it's misleading to imply that the Framework as
currently
> > written is usable for a wide variety of languages, and specifically
for
> > MathML.
> >
> > In any event, we ask that layout (size) negotiation for text-like
child
> > documents be added as a formal requirement for the Compound Document
by

> > Inclusion work. We would suggest that the CDR Framework document
> explicitly
> > state that automatic size negotiation between parent and child is not
> > currently supported by CDR but will be addressed in CDI; this
> negotiation
> > should then include access to the baseline of child content.
> >
> > Thanks very much for your consideration.
> >
> > Ron Ausbrooks on behalf of the Math Working Group
> >
> >
> >
>
>



Re: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

by David Carlisle :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message



Steve

> To be more specific on how this is being tracked:
>
> Since this was originally marked as a disagree from the first LC and then
> it was reraised during our second LC, we are not tracking it as 2
> disagrees.  Only the one [1] against the first LC for comments.

As a personal response, I don't think that this is sufficiently clear
logging of the status. The current situation makes it look as if the
original comment which was essentially re-raised has now been agreed to
be non-applicable which certainly is NOT the case. Marking it as "disagree"
would be clearest, or as an absolute minimum marking it as duplicate of
the earlier comment would be just about acceptable.  Either way it
should be coloured red not green in the last call document disposition
of comments document. Being a duplicate comment (which it wasn't,
exactly) is not the same as being "not applicable".


David





Re: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

by Chris Lilley :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message


On Thursday, March 29, 2007, 11:28:25 PM, David wrote:


DC> Steve

>> To be more specific on how this is being tracked:
>>
>> Since this was originally marked as a disagree from the first LC and then
>> it was reraised during our second LC, we are not tracking it as 2
>> disagrees.  Only the one [1] against the first LC for comments.

DC> As a personal response, I don't think that this is sufficiently clear
DC> logging of the status. The current situation makes it look as if the
DC> original comment which was essentially re-raised has now been agreed to
DC> be non-applicable which certainly is NOT the case. Marking it as "disagree"
DC> would be clearest, or as an absolute minimum marking it as duplicate of
DC> the earlier comment would be just about acceptable.  Either way it
DC> should be coloured red not green in the last call document disposition
DC> of comments document. Being a duplicate comment (which it wasn't,
DC> exactly) is not the same as being "not applicable".

I think that explicitly marking it as a duplicate is the best way
forward. That would avoid the 'double count' concern that Steve
mentioned. And it should be coloured red because it has the same
status as the comment it closely duplicates.

I agree that 'not applicable' is not an obvious way to mark a
duplicate.




--
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@...
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG



Re: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

by Steve K Speicher :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message


David Carlisle <davidc@...> wrote on 03/29/2007 05:28:25 PM:
>
> Steve
>
> > To be more specific on how this is being tracked:
> >
> > Since this was originally marked as a disagree from the first LC and
then
> > it was reraised during our second LC, we are not tracking it as 2
> > disagrees.  Only the one [1] against the first LC for comments.
>
> As a personal response, I don't think that this is sufficiently clear
> logging of the status. The current situation makes it look as if the
> original comment which was essentially re-raised has now been agreed to
> be non-applicable which certainly is NOT the case. Marking it as
"disagree"
> would be clearest, or as an absolute minimum marking it as duplicate of
> the earlier comment would be just about acceptable.  Either way it
> should be coloured red not green in the last call document disposition
> of comments document. Being a duplicate comment (which it wasn't,
> exactly) is not the same as being "not applicable".
>

David,

I was only simplifying things by assigning to best choice I had available
to me.  Since then we've added a "duplicate" status and it links to the
original comment thread.  It was marked a neutral color to not
overemphasize agree or disagree, when made in duplicate.

http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/2006/LC_Comments/CDRFWICDLC2.xml#LC2-132

Regards,
Steve Speicher


Re: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

by David Carlisle :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message




Steve,

> I was only simplifying things by assigning to best choice I had available
> to me

Surely the best choice was (and still is) to mark the resolution as
disagree as that is unfortunately the outcome. Marking it as anything
else (including its present state) just gives the impression that the
CDF group is trying to artificially lower the "disagree" count.

Comments on an earlier draft, even if it was a "last call" are quite
likely to be less appropriate for later drafts as, by the nature of
things the text in later drafts will have changed.

The Math WG went to some trouble to review the second last call and
send new comments, we didn't just leave the old comments to stand.
If the comments are just going to brushed off as a duplicate, why did we
bother, in fact why have a second review call at all?

MathML is the oldest XML application and is specifcally designed to be
used in "compound document formats". It and all other textual language
formats will be harmed if frameworks based on the current CDF specs are
deployed, and surely it's not asking too much that the Math WG's
disagreement with the current CDF specs are unambiguously recorded?

David
(personal response)


Re: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

by Chris Lilley :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message


On Thursday, April 5, 2007, 3:46:50 PM, Steve wrote:

SKS> I was only simplifying things by assigning to best choice I had available
SKS> to me.  Since then we've added a "duplicate" status and it links to the
SKS> original comment thread.  It was marked a neutral color to not
SKS> overemphasize agree or disagree, when made in duplicate.

SKS> http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/2006/LC_Comments/CDRFWICDLC2.xml#LC2-132

Steve,

The Math WG still disagrees with the response to the second Last call, and that disagreement will be discussed on the CR transition call. Its therefore much clearer to mark it as both a disagree and as a duplicate; please do so.


--
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@...
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG


LightInTheBox - Buy quality products at wholesale price!