W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2008

Re: several messages about New Vocabularies in text/html

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:03:04 -0400
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Neil Soiffer <Neils@dessci.com>, public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC0939CD4.55A7CAB7-ON8525741F.004D0F06-8525741F.004D2F70@us.ibm.com>
Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote on 04/02/2008 03:26:57 AM:

> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > ...
> > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Neil Soiffer wrote:
> > > > I meant that content MathML doesn't need to be directly supported.
> > > > However, it should be accepted as part of <annotation-xml>, where
it is
> > > > easily ignored.
> > >
> > > HTML5 today has about 110 elements. Presentational MathML has about
30.
> > > Content MathML has about 140.
> > >
> > > _Doubling_ the number of elements allowed in text/html just so that
all
> > > those elements can be ignored seems like a fundamentally bad
> idea. (It also
> > > more than doubles the number of elements that the parser has to
> know about.)
> > > ...
> >
> > The solution is not to add them to HTML (nor SVG, nor...), but to
define
> > an extensibility point.
>
> Yes, people keep saying that, but I've yet to see a detailed proposal
that
> is workable. I've tried coming up with many different ideas, but all had
> some fatal flaw that wouldn't work on the Web.
>
> If you have any concrete ideas on how to make this work, I encourage you
> to contribute to the wiki:
>
>    http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Extensions

I have now contributed to that page.  Feel free to identify where the
proposal is not detailed enough or to identify any flaws that may, or may
not, prove fatal.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 14:03:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:14 GMT