W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > December 2006

Re: Profiling and certificates for MathML. Avoiding imitators

From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:44:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3590.217.124.69.225.1166795086.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>
To: <www-math@w3.org>


White Lynx said:

> But putting extra attribute(s) on each math element could be an issue for
> authors and extra verbosity might encourage them not to use these
> attribute(s) at all.

I did mean attribute at the XML markup level. The question of the
attribute on input syntax and verbosity there is different.

> One can assume that version and/or profile attribute(s) of math element
> are inherited by subsequent math elements if those lack these attributes.

This assumes fragment documents will be mixed in a concrete hierarchy, if
hierarchy is changed this can generate unspected problems. Authors could
puzzle on why their equations work ok when sited after equations of their
colleague A but no after colleague G.

>> Some control over is or not is MathML appears to be needed.

> But who is supposed to control it?

This is far from my current knowledge. The W3C would ask to their
specialists on rights, legaliy, patents... MathML is registered by W3C.

I simply noticed that some kind of certification and/or control is needed
unless MathML community agrees with something as (non-HTML non-XML syntax)

<math display='block'>
   mfrac():
      mrow():
         mi(): "a"
         mo(): "+"
         mn(): "b"
      mn(): "b"
</math>

being called MathML because certain UAs parse it generating MathML DOM...

To the question

5.5 I really like the HTML 3.2 specification, but would like to make some
changes, may I modify the 3.2 specification in a few places and
redistribute it? May I call it HTML 3.2.1?

W3C legally replies "No and no."

I see not very different from an "no and no" for hypotetical

x.x I really like the MathML 2.0 specification, but would like to make
some changes (entities, mrows behavior, optional end tags, explicitely
forbiding prefix namespaces, elimination of empty tags syntax as in SML,
attribute minimization, case insensitivity...), may I modify the MathML
2.0 specification in a few places and redistribute it? May I call it
MathML-in-HTML5?

> Ideally it should be responsibility of parties involved in process to
> agree on common principles and then follow them, if it is not the case
> then it is hard to ensure interoperability just by pointing to papers.

I doubt it! On the Chemical Web Of Trust vision, Murray-Rust uses X.509
certification thechnology and certifies either human authoring docs or
automated computations, e.g. intrumentation laboratory i.e. not different
from authoring tools.

> For instance if decision was made to treat something as XML application,
> then individual participants should not undermine the rest by accepting
> non-wellformed content.

But we _are_ seeing examples of invalid XML! Last one example, I know [1],
was extracted from [2] and is publicized and applauded on [3] with honors.

It is important to notice that [2] is not page for homework being done by
a schoolboy using a Wysiwyg tool and never seeing the source code. Page
[2] is a project page from anyone who is developing a so-called MathML
tool. Page [3] is from an academic who self-claim driving the
technologically most advanced blog of the planet!

> In case of SVG for example, there is
> some kind of concensus among interested parties (result: WhatWG
considers > SVG outside of their scope).

Well they developed canvas (non-XML non-HTML :). Rumours say SVG was
discharged with an eye on certain games platform project from "M".

How already said you (in private) an important SVG folk recently noticed
rumours he knows about certain subset of people from "M" who want to stop
development of SVG on certain browser in favor of new canvas.



[1]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2006Dec/0022.html. Last
accessed today!

[2]  http://intertwingly.net/stories/2006/12/05/mathml.html4

[3]  http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001065.html
Received on Friday, 22 December 2006 13:45:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:59 GMT