W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2009

[Bug 7848] MathML version used in HTML5

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:41:06 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1N0C9K-0000Ex-Pj@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7848





--- Comment #3 from David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>  2009-10-20 10:41:06 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The spec doesn't intentionally reference a particular version; the date is just
> the date of the spec at the time the references section was written.

That's fine (the main thing to avoid is that it should reference (or be seen to
be referencing) _just_ mathml2, thus banning mathml3.

I'd have thought that the thing to do given your stated policy is to reference
the "latest version" uri that is
http://www.w3.org/tr/mathml
which is currently MathML2 (rather than the MathML3 draft) but will become
mathml3 once that's a rec.

I see that's what you do in the current HTML5 draft. So the only question is
whether the following text should say "latest version of mathml" or whether it
should say the version that you looked at. Currently it uses the latter style
so lists the mathml2 editors and the date "october 2003". This is a general
question about the style used in the html5 references section, so I'm happy to
leave that to the discretion of the html5 chairs and editor.

If the MathML reference uses the generic URI http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML/ 

and whatever wording convention used in the HTML5 references section for
generic references, I don't think there is any MathML-specific issue.

David


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 10:41:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 October 2009 10:41:13 GMT