Talk:MathML
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
WebEQ
editDon't know if it's suitable for inclusion, but there is a Java piece of software called WebEQ which renders MathML in a browser and has a WYSIWYG editor that can write the MathML for you.
Mediawiki extension with MathML support
editI know it is not about the article but can help who need it (like me): I've made a extension to mediawiki. Here is the link: ASCIIMathML4Wiki SSPecter ☎|✉ ♠ 01:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC).
MathML support in Chrome as of 2013-01-12
editan overview of browser support of MathML: http://caniuse.com/mathml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.208.11 (talk • contribs) 30 April 2012 14:38
Removal of Browser Support section
editI propose removing the “Browser support” section entirely. The parts of it that are likely to be interesting are better placed in the History section. It contains a large number of abandoned browsers, and even among those browsers that are still active, the information may be misleading or incorrect. This is particularly true of the introductory text in that section, which is currently a hot mess.
One bit is worth rescuing; the final paragraph of text (“The quality of rendering of MathML in a browser depends…”) could (and likely should) be moved into the section “Presentation and semantics”. Otherwise, it seems to me the article would be more timeless and less cluttered by the removal of this section.
Feedback on this proposal is welcome! EricAMeyer (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- In the absence of feedback pro or con, I’ve gone ahead and done this just now. EricAMeyer (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)