W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2010

[Bug 9859] add document-conformance constraints for documents that contain SVG or MathML content that in turn contains HTML content

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:37:21 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OO3IP-0004Yr-RM@jessica.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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 June 2010 06:37:26 GMT