- From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:06:05 -0800 (PST)
- To: <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: <www-math@w3.org>
David Carlisle said: > >> I am not interested in technical details or if the validators are >> strictly following the XML spec or are not. > > Maybe you are not, but anyone hosting a validation service clearly > should be concerned about that, and it was the behaviour of validation > services that you were questioning. Agree >> Whereas the MathML validator A will say it "The input is valid MathML" >> and the B will say it "This Page Is Valid MathML 2.0!". > >> Then the guy got confused and read the MathML specification and there >> explicitely it is said that their code is _prohibited_. > > This isn't really any different from using an <a> element nested inside > another in XHTML. Any DTD validation service will tell you it's valid > but the prose text of the XHTML will tell you that it is prohibited. > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#prohibitions Except when using a strict DTD. Then the validator will alert of nesting <a> > It's always going to be possible to define more constrains in the prose > text of a specifcation than in any formal grammar, and it's not at all > unusual for language specifications to do that. > > David
Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 16:06:49 UTC