W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Validation of MathML

From: Pepping, Simon (ELS) <S.Pepping@elsevier.nl>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:25:01 -0000
Message-ID: <4D56BD81F62EFD49A74B1057ECD75C06068E785B@elsamsvexch01.elsevier.nl>
To: "'David Carlisle'" <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Cc: www-math@w3.org

David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk] wrote on 27 February 2003 21:01:
> Simon,
> 
> Others have mentioned the schema, but assuming that you want a dtd
> version to fit into a larger dtd based document type, have you noticed
> that the current version has an option to turn on stricter checking
> just set
>    <!ENTITY % MathMLstrict "INCLUDE">
> before including the mathml dtd into your dtd.
> 
> there is some documentation of this feature in appendix a of the draft
> version of mathml2 2nd edition.
> 
> I'd be interested to know if
> a) these extra dtd based tests would be useful to you
> and
> b) if you've spotted any other places where this parameter 
> entity could
> turn on some stricter checks. (there certainly are a few more places I
> suspect)

I was not aware of this feature. I will certainly try it. I prefer DTD based
validation above more sophisticated validation methods; it is the first and
easiest step in any validation. Schemas could be a strong replacement of it,
but DTD based validation certainly fits better into our current workflow.

We will begin to receive MathML content from other parties in the second
half of this year. I think that only then will we be able to see how strong
each validation method is.

With kind regards,
Simon Pepping
DTD Development and Maintenance
Elsevier
s.pepping@elsevier.com
www.elsevier.com/locate/sgml
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 03:32:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:54 GMT