[the__alchemist]

Ok, but why? What's the advantage of having unwritable and unreadable syntax? Why shouldn't I be able to edit it directly?

This difference in opinion (on a subjective topic) is causing a rift between MathMl's goal of a universal math-language for browsers are more, with a large chunk of the potential users who hate the syntax.

[vehemenz]

Accessibility. A fully unambiguous mathematical language like MathML can produce markup for the blind.

[lkey]

I have worked in this space, and I think at present this benefit is and will remain primarily aspirational. Here's MathJax in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GSgTjorewQ

It's semi-respectable for a computer analysis, but notice that the creator of this video is using TeX to enter the math. You now don't have to write a caption when you paste some math, automated a11y semi-compliance, but does this mean you stop vetting your site with a screen reader? The answer should be no, but I get a feeling that many developers will check the box and move on (see also: "accessibility overlays").

Now, let's turn the situation around, you are blind, you have heard and understood a complex equation, you must respond by writing a response to that equation. How do you do it? Does MathML help you? The markup, generated from TeX, that can be read aloud by a computer, is still fundamentally read only. The most tech savvy of the visually impaired I've met learned to program and use python or something to do their math. It beats the hell out of handwriting xml or using a very restrictive mathML wysiwyg editor with a screen reader.

Do I think MathML is a pure negative? No, but it's not even close to a silver bullet, and using potential a11y benefits to shield its flaws doesn't sit right with me.

[nsajko]

> advantage of having unwritable and unreadable syntax

There's (in a way) a false dilemma at play here. MathML is unreadable because it's XML, but it is also possible to describe trees in more readable languages like S-expressions.

Either way, it would be absurd to add TeX into a Web browser ...

[MontyCarloHall]

> Either way, it would be absurd to add TeX into a Web browser ...

I agree. Nobody is seriously proposing adding a full LaTeX implementation to a browser, but rather a parseable subset of TeX strictly for math markup, à la MathJax, which incidentally has become the de facto standard for embedding math in webpages.

[ubavic]

But who will decide what commands will be part of that subset? There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of commands that are used regularly in tex documents for displaying various forms of notation, and mathematicians still create new notation and packages for it. Most of the commands in MathJax aren't part of TeX, but LaTeX or even some popular package (amsmath, etc.). Some things are implemented in more then one packages, and those different implementation have differences (for example, in Russian books integral sign is different than one in American).

If we implement a subset of TeX in a browser, there are two options: 1. If we only include the most used commands, such technology will be useless for professional mathematicians and probably be obsolete in future (when some new useful notation appears). 2. On the other hand, if we keep adding new commands for every type of mathematical notation, then we will need longer names for commands (or maybe namespaces) and notation will not be readable anymore. Not to mention that browsers maintainers will need a lot of work to implement all that (How long will that take?)

Also, if we implement only a subset of TeX, users will not be able to easily (or anyhow) create new notation. On the other hand, MathML is very flexible in that regard and allows users to be creative.

And, contrary to some other comments in this discussion, I don't think that code for mathematical notation must be human readable before all. Whatever approach you take (tex, XML, S-expressions), you will quickly find some examples that are horrendous for coding (integral inequalties, steps in PDE solution, commutative diagram, proof tree...)

[dkarl]

If people hate the syntax, at least it will serve as a stable target to compile other math markup languages to. It might even lead to a lot more experimentation and innovation in that area.