From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:48:20 -0400

To: W3C MathML Discussion <www-math@w3.org>

Message-ID: <i7u0su90sr.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:48:20 -0400

To: W3C MathML Discussion <www-math@w3.org>

Message-ID: <i7u0su90sr.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

Justin Garofoli <justin.garofoli@gmail.com> writes: > Sorry if I'm being dense, but I haven't been able to find this stuff > very easily on either the mathml or the xthml website. The main > examples given aren't valid xhtml (with the w3 validator), so I dug > deeper. The best that I could do is xhtml1.1 plus mathml, and of > course css. However, tools that I considered essential for authorship > (the w3 standard documents for html/xhtml and css) don't clearly add > up with xhtml1.1. The 1.1 documents don't follow the same format as > the older ones (which I had found particularly easy to use). Perhaps > I am missing something, or asking too much of you. I guess the > simplest answer to my question would be one that answers the question > of where a dtd for xhtml1.0 (strict or transitonal) plus mathml is. > Or, what would I be best advised to do if I want valid xhtml with > mathml? See http://www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/support/gellmu/doc/userdoc-ht.xml for an example that does validate through validator.w3.org Note that with XML a DOCTYPE declaration must have a system identifier, and I believe that http://www.w3.org/Math/DTD/mathml2/xhtml-math11-f.dtd (a single file -- date 2003/11/04) is current. -- BillReceived on Saturday, 16 October 2004 14:48:22 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:49 UTC
*