|
View:
New views
10 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
|
|
Math WG comments on latest CDF documentsThe Math Working Group has reviewed the current drafts of the CDF
documents: ·
Compound
Document by Reference Framework 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 documentsRon, 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 > : > · 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 documentsSteve, 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 documentsRon, 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 documentsTo 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 documentsSteve > 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 documentsOn 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 documentsDavid 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 documentsSteve, > 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 documentsOn 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 |
| Free Forum Powered by Nabble | Forum Help |