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

Re: MathML - variant selector errors in section 6.3.5.

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:03:14 +0100
Message-Id: <200306030903.KAA29164@penguin.nag.co.uk>
To: rick@unicode.org
CC: www-math@w3.org, duerst@w3.org, ishida@w3.org


Thanks for this.

> I just compared the list against StandardizedVariants.txt of 4.0.

At some point I did mechanically check the mathml variants list against
a draft of the StandardizedVariants document and a draft of TR25, but
either the draft changed or later hand edits on our side have caused
these differences (or it sems more likely, a combination of all these
things, see below.)

I already had an action item to double check this list before the next MathML
draft, so thanks for pointing out these discrepancies. They will
certainly be fixed in the next draft (which should be this month with a
bit of luck).

> There are four things listed in MathML list that are NOT in  
> StandardizedVariants for Unicode 4.0:

This is clearly bad, and will be deleted.

I note 2 of the 4 that you list:

2278
2279

are in StandardizedVariants-4.0.0.txt but commented out, and are in the
files I actually used:

http://www.unicode.org/Public/3.2-Update/StandardizedVariants-3.2.0.html
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr25/

Which explains how they came to be there, although however they got
there they should clearly go now to align with unicode 4.

> There is only one thing listed in StandardizedVariants for 4.0 that is NOT  
> shown in the MathML list:

We may as well list this one as well, for completeness,

Unless I have missed something the lack of a variant of 2225 introduces
another unfortunate case where unicode doesn't have enough characters to
support the ISO entity sets in any plausible way, in this case parsl in
ISO 9573 part 13 ISOTECH. It would be _really_ helpful if Unicode 4.x
would add characters to cover the ISO entity sets. It is very hard to
automate safe conversion of SGML (with SDATA entities) to XML (with
entities expanding to Unicode) without these characters.



> I hope this information reaches the right people.

It did.

> Also the document still refers to Unicode 3.2, though 4.0 has been  
> published since mid April.

Yes, adding unicode 4 (and a reference to the new unicode 4 script l)
is already in the pipeline for the next draft.

David


________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 05:03:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:55 GMT