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

Fwd: Re: MathML2.0 2nd ed.

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 08:38:00 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030509083735.00b5f860@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-math@w3.org


>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>X-VirusChecked: Checked
>X-Env-Sender: davidc@nag.co.uk
>X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-22.messagelabs.com!1052479620!1406
>Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:26:41 +0100
>From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
>To: boland@nist.gov
>CC: w3c-css-wg@w3.org, duerst@w3.org
>Subject: Re: MathML2.0 2nd ed.
>
>
>Tim,
>
> > I'm trying to review MathML2.0 2nd ed. and it would be helpful to have an
> > index of all elements and attributes in one place for easy reference.
>
>Hmm you are not the only one it seems! Yesterday in a last call comment
>to the www-math list Martin Duerst said:
>
>   Overall: It would be extremely nice to have an index of elements
>   and attributes. Given all the technology used for producing the
>   spec, this shouldn't be a problem at all.
>
>It looks like we will do this and a very quick version (elements only,
>just from a couple of minutes xslt hacking and no thought, is available
>attached to a message I sent to the member only math WG list here
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-math-wg/2003AprJun/0192.html
>
>(I'm CC'ing this to Martin, for his information, although I'll reply
>again to Martin's public message in public once the WG formally agrees
>to add this appendix and once there is a slightly cleaner version)
>
>There are three or four followup messages linked from that archived message.
>
> > Also, I
> > notice that CSS1 and CSS2 are in acknowledgements; there is a CSS2.1 
> coming
> > along (not yet a rec).
>
>We have a general issue to check the references list for any necessary
>updates before the final draft. It depends on timing. I suspect that if
>css 2.1 is not in rec at the time of us going to rec, then the correct
>thing to do is that we reference the latest rec version (which would be
>2.0) rather than the draft of 2.1.  It would be different if we were
>using any explicit features only added in a draft version.  However it
>is an issue that ought probably be explictly decided rather than me
>inventing policy on the fly, also we ought to take as an issue to track
>css 2.1 and definitely update the reference if you do go to REC before
>us.
>
>Could you send a message about css 2.1 to www-math then it will
>automatically get into our last call issue tracking procedures and won't
>get lost (as private mail to me might;-)
>
>Thanks,
>
>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 Friday, 9 May 2003 09:34:40 GMT

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