W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > April 2004

Re: Combining markup

From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:18:39 +0200
Message-Id: <57EA3C74-9186-11D8-93B6-000A95C50B1C@activemath.org>
Cc: www-math@w3.org
To: Luca Padovani <lpadovan@cs.unibo.it>

Funnily this approach you described, which I would call "coordinate as 
extra attributes", is the one we use in ActiveMath.

But you tackle the problem well by saying that combined markup gives a 
kind of self-contained-ness: coordinate-as-
extra-attributes could be said to be dirty... at least it is 
non-standard hence, in principle, not usable by anyone else than your 
programs/web-pages.

The self-contained-ness character is, I think, something that will not 
survive and I would expect applications to migrate to a model where a 
paste actually triggers web-requests over the web.

paul

On 18-Apr-04, at 08:17 Uhr, Luca Padovani wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 00:28, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>> As I understand it, parallel markup is required if one wants to offer
>> correct sub-term selection
>
> well, not _strictly_ required. If you generate properly grouped mathml 
> presentation markup it is possible that the structure of presentation 
> is a refinement of the structure of content. In this case, by adding 
> an attribute on those presentation elements that actually match a 
> content
> subtree, you're able to discriminate between cosmetic presentation 
> markup and markup that "means something" without looking at the 
> content level.
>
> What mixed markup gives you is (among other things) the ability to 
> make the document somehow self-contained, whereas the approach that I 
> just described is useful if you can "trace back" the content from 
> presentation, perhaps looking at the value of those mentioned
> attributes. Note that this is the approach used in HELM/MoWGLI.
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2004 18:19:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:56 GMT