W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Document Object Model (DOM) Level 3 Validation Specification

From: Ron Ausbrooks <ron.ausbrooks@mackichan.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:13:47 -0700
Message-ID: <11D18B868ED8D111AA1800A0246B6E9F25984C@pukoro.NMSU.Edu>
To: "'Benjamin C. Chang'" <Ben.Chang@oracle.com>, "'www-dom@w3.org'" <www-dom@w3.org>, "'w3c-math-wg@w3.org'" <w3c-math-wg@w3.org>

Benjamin,

Many apologies! Your original message had gotten lost in my mailbox... In
fact, I had been trying to figure out whether my inquiry had been sent to
the wrong place for a while now.

Yes, absolutely I think we're satisfied. Thanks very much for your
consideration.

ron

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-math-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-math-wg-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Benjamin C. Chang
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:06 PM
To: Ron Ausbrooks; 'www-dom@w3.org'; 'w3c-math-wg@w3.org'
Subject: Re: Document Object Model (DOM) Level 3 Validation
Specification



Since we have not heard otherwise, we are assuming that you
have no objections to our resolution.

Thx,
Ben

"Benjamin C. Chang" wrote:

> We considered your proposal.  We decided against incorporating
> it into the validation spec; however, if groups such as yours wish
> to add such extensions on their own, that would be ok.  We will
> add documentation to that effect.
>
> Please let us know if you are satisfied (or not) with the resolution.
>
> Thx,
> Ben
>
> Ron Ausbrooks wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > The Math Working Group has reviewed the DOM Level 3 Validation
> > Specification, and we have no objections to it.
> >
> > However, we'd like to inquire about the possibility of more stringent
> > validation for particular XML dialects. In some cases notably MathML and
> > HTML) there are restrictions in the recommendations which aren't
codifiable
> > in a DTD or W3C XML Schema. Do you feel that it would be appropriate for
us
> > to define an extension of the NodeEditVAL interface for the MathML DOM,
> > adding a new CheckTypeVAL constant so that validation would include
these
> > non-codifiable restrictions? (This would be named something like
> > "MATHML_STRICT_VALIDITY_CHECK", and would of necessity includes
> > STRICT_VALIDITY_CHECK.) A feature string such as "MATHML-VAL-DOC" would
be
> > needed as well. Or do you see this as exceeding the mandate of
validation?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Ron Ausbrooks
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 18:17:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:56 GMT