- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:03:40 +0300
- To: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, ian@hixie.ch, public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org
On Mar 31, 2008, at 20:17, Bruce Miller wrote: > So, Classic MathML, provided it didn't use namespace prefixes, I > assume, would be valid to embed in HTML5? I consider that a requirement (at least when there are no OpenMath annotation-xml subtrees). > Are you referring to the exporting of MathML as XML > a not-necessarily-mandated "UI feature" ? > That seems really bad to me. In general, UI is where HTML5 allows browser-vendors to innovate freely. Firefox already has View MathML Source in the context menu, so I wouldn't be too worried. > Besides, if, as you say, MathML as XML would be allowed in HTML5, > there'd be no need for a browser to export the HTML5 serialization. This already came up in the SVG discussion. Even if you allow copying and pasting (unprefixed) MathML or SVG XML source into text/html, you still need an HTML5 parser and an XML serializer to extract MathML-in- text/html or SVG-in-text/html from the Web into XML-only apps *in the general case*, because someone out there *will* produce markup that parses as HTML5 but not as XML. If you refuse to use an HTML5 parser either in the browser, as a standalone tool or integrated into an importing editor, HTML authors have a very simple copy protection mechanism to use against you. :-) The mistake with insisting on the syntax looking like XML in order to enable reuse is the expectation that HTML authors will cooperate with you. They won't--either accidentally or deliberately. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 19:04:31 UTC