W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > April 2002

Fwd: Re: Errata on MathML (was: Re: UTC Agenda Item: Variation Selection Problem)

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 10:50:26 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020403104948.038ad420@localhost>
To: www-math@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
FYI.

>Delivered-To: duerst@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp
>Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 16:55:07 -0800 (PST)
>From: Kenneth Whistler <kenw@sybase.com>
>To: davidc@nag.co.uk
>Subject: Re: Errata on MathML (was: Re: UTC Agenda Item: 
>Variation   Selection Problem)
>Cc: unicore@unicode.org, ion@ams.org, bnb@ams.org

>[ Please forward this reply to www-math@w3.org and w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org,
>   which were on the cc list, but which I don't belong to. ]
>
>David,
>
> > >Any by the way, is *anybody* minding the store over there in
> > >MathML? How do W3C Recommendations get published with blatant
> > >errors in their use of the Unicode Standard and 10646?
> >
> > well errors happen and I'm sure there are errors in mathml (as I'm sure
> > there are in unicode),
>
>I'm sorry about the overly harsh tone of the critique there -- it
>was spoken in a moment of exasperation, and was not intended for
>direct delivery to the MathML community. I should have guessed that
>someone on the unicore list would immediately forward the entire
>note to the MathML list, exasperation and all. ;-)
>
> > It was always planned to issue errata to
> > bring things back into line with unicode once 3.2 was finalised, there
> > was not much point in doing anything before that.
>
>This seems a reasonable approach to me. Unicode 3.2 is now finalized,
>so the door is open now.
>
>And I do realize how frustrating it must have been to try to follow
>the variation selector discussion and relevant code points and
>variation sequences before everything settle down.
>
> >
> > >Incidentally, the MathML tables also make the nonsanctioned
> > >extension of all character short identifiers to 5 digits
> > >(defined neither by the Unicode Standard nor Clause 6.5 of
> > >10646-1).
> >
> > I see that this comment on the number of digits was corrected later, but
> > in anycase it can only refer to the unicode U.... notation for refering
> > to a unicode character.
>
>Correct. I'm simply referring to the tables that use what appear
>to be Unicode code points using Unicode short identifiers.
>
> > MathML (mainly, if not always) uses XML &#
> > notation and that is defined by the XML spec not by either Unicode or
> > 10646. It would be entirely wrong to suggest that (say) &#032; is incorrect
> > in any way, similarly any other decimal or hex represenataion of the
> > number.
>
>Granted. Nor would I suggest that.
>
> > The DTD files consistently use 5 digits and the 5 digit form is
> > used to generate consistent file names for the PNG files of  representative
> > character images in the HTML version of the spec. As far as I can see
> > this adds clarity to the dtd and does not contravene any relevant
> > specification.
> >
> > This reply only really comments on the "social" aspects of the comments
> > in the original message. The technical comments relating to
> > the mathml character assignments are however noted and we will as I
> > comment above be checking the DTD for various issues, Unicode 3.2
> > compliance being one, and issuing errata if necessary as soon as time
> > permits.
>
>This seems like a wholly satisfactory outcome, if it proceeds in
>a timely fashion.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Ken Whistler
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2002 21:14:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:51 GMT