From: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:27:02 -0500

Message-Id: <200307251527.h6PFR2K07200@wisdom.geomtech.com>

To: Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de

CC: mf@w3.org, www-math@w3.org

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:27:02 -0500

Message-Id: <200307251527.h6PFR2K07200@wisdom.geomtech.com>

To: Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de

CC: mf@w3.org, www-math@w3.org

Hi Andreas, > But it does purport to *test* conformance (if not define it), so that > errors should only be raised in the appropriate section (namely, error > handling). > > Besides, if the MathML processor you're testing is in fact an > off-the-shelf Mozilla browser, which (correctly) refuses to process the > simple formula "a<b", then I question the appropriateness of leaving the > tests as they are. > > >Besides, one could try to run the test suite on a MathML 1.x processor > >where those tests should not return an error. > > > In which case it should be labeled as a MathML 1.x test suite, not "the" > MathML one. As long as it is prominently linked from the main MathML > page as *the* MathML test suite, its positive examples should not use > any features deprecated at the current Recommendation version level at > all, since it should serve as an example to other users of MathML. I don't disagree, but the realities of the situation are merely that there is too much to do. I'll get to it, but probably not for a while. That's the best I can do. Sorry. --Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Robert Miner RobertM@dessci.com MathML 2.0 Specification Co-editor 651-223-2883 Design Science, Inc. "How Science Communicates" www.dessci.com ------------------------------------------------------------------Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 11:27:11 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:34 UTC
*