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

Re: Samples from the Internet

From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:16:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3542.>
To: <www-math@w3.org>

David Carlisle said:
>> Just by curiosity. There exists another online validator (from a
>> famous CAS) that approves
>> <math xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML'>
>> <apply>
>>  <mo>&gg;</mo>  <!-- put entity for the operator here -->
>>  <ci>x</ci>
>>  <cn>0</cn>
>> </apply>
>> </math>
>> as valid MathML.
> yes as I said, in my corrected messgage, the dtd won't flag this as an
> error by default so it is valid in the technical definition of valid as
> defined by XML. That doesn't mean however that it isn't an error as
> MathML.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML/appendixa.html
> says
>   ... and partly due to the fact that for reasons of compatibility with
> earlier releases, the DTD is intentionally forgiving in some places
> and does not enforce constraints that are specified in the text of
> this specification.
> A few paragraphs further down
> http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML/appendixa.html#parsing.dtd.strict
> it does explain how the DTD can be made to check some additional things,
> including this.
> David

I do not know that validator is really doing, i do not know if validate
against a DTD or Schema, or some internal representation or what.

The Additional DTD Checking defined in appendix generates an error in the

I am not interested in legacy issues. I simply pointed that certain MathML
validator validates as correct input is not correct according to the today

I understand you, but only reason i said was that someone from _that_ CAS
can take a look to their validator for checking this. Sorry, it was not
information for you even if i send you a copy of message.
Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 13:16:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:42:12 UTC