I decided to discontinue MathML-Presentation (MathML-P) support in the Math-o-mir software. The reason is because I think that the LaTeX does much better job as a math typesetter and is more broadly accepted than the MathML-P.

I was never much fan of the MathML as it is too verbose and too complex to be written by humans. Supporting software exists, but all such software offers the LaTeX output as well. Therefore I see no benefit of MathML-P over the LaTeX. There are disadvantages only.

The LaTeX, on the other hand, is handy enough that it is possible to write it directly from the keyboard. Many people do it. Others, that find WYSIWYG formula typesetting handier, might use the Math-o-mir to create LaTeX code. So I will tend to improve LaTeX support in Math-o-mir.

The Math-o-mir software never included MathML-Content (MathML-C) support and I have no plans to support it in the near future. The reason is the overall low acceptance of the MathML-C. Still, I consider the MathML-C as a more reasonable part of the MathML standard. It is possible that one day someone will also include MathML-C support into the Math-o-mir.

The MathML-C could become a way to interchange structured math between various software packages as there are no competing standards for this purpose. Still, because the MathML is very complex, I cannot bet this will ever happen. It can easily happen that some other/new de-facto standard will prevail… Note, by the way, that the LaTeX cannot be easily used for inter-software-math-exchange as it lacks some structural data. The LaTeX is only good to export data to math typesetters.

Now this is hard/harsh to say but…** I recommend to math community to press the W3C to discontinue MathML-P as there are other, better alternatives already. This way the remaining MathML-C will get more attention. The MathML-C should be either simplified or clearly split into a basic and a full set.**

I hope that this tiny voice of mine will not remain isolated.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

I don’t understand your point. mathml was not intended to be written by humans. The w3c mathml is complex, but is less complex than the microsoft mathml version (which has 130+ elements as opposed about 30 for w3c version).

The main problem with mathml is that there are no good authoring tools for presentation or content. The other problem is that (by design, in order to promote their rendering engines) the few existing decent editors create mathml in different ways so the output is not really interchangeable between them.

I like/use latex, but I don’t see it as an alternative to mathml.

Hi. It is my opinion that MathML complexity is preserving its wider spread. For example, browsers did not support it for a long time because it was hard to implement it. I think that it would be better if W3C first released a basic version (just a basic math support) and later upgraded it as needed.

I agree that the main problem with MathML is that there are no good tools – but it is so largely because of the MathML complexity.

I see the LaTeX and MathML-P as direct alternatives. LaTeX has the advantage of being wider accepted (and it is possible for humans to type it directly). Therefore I think that MathML-P does not give us anything essentially new. The MathML-C, on the other hand, is a new thing that enables structured formula exchange – therefore I think we should concentrate on the MathML-C only.