- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:37:21 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9859 --- Comment #8 from Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org> 2010-06-14 06:37:21 --- (In reply to comment #7) > > I think > > this is a case where it makes sense for the document-conformance requirements > > to be stricter than what the parsing algorithm allows > > Why? Is this something that will change over time (i.e. do you think it will > make sense to allow HTML in <mn> in the future)? I don't think it will make sense to allow HTML in <mn> in the future, no. But from what I've gleaned both about MathML semantics and that MathML tools situation, putting HTML into <mn> (or any of the "token elements" except for <mtext>) is both not a good match for MathML semantics and also a potential problem for other non-browser MathML processing tools. I think the case is that the existing tools don't necessarily expect to do any processing at all of <mtext> contents -- and so any non-MathML-namespace markup they find in <mtext> is not going to cause them any processing failures -- whereas some tools do not expect such markup in <mn>, etc., so it may cause them some processing failures. Anyway, I think what we'll eventually need is for someone knowledgeable about MathML semantic differences and the MathML tool situation -- preferably somebody from the Math WG -- to post comment here with some more details. -- 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 Monday, 14 June 2010 06:37:23 UTC