- From: White Lynx <whitelynx@operamail.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:28:17 +0400
- To: www-math@w3.org
> I think he was originally speaking against having entity names like > † available in a user agent's DOM while they are formally > excluded from an author's content as shipped through the web. No I meant mi, mo, mn token elements. >> HTML does this all the time. (E.g. inferred <tbody> element as a child > >> of <table>, inferred <head> and <body> elements,...) There's nothing > >> wrong with inferred elements ... per se. > > > One thing when you can unamboguously infer completely useless element > >that has no semantic value > > If you can unambiguously infer an element, it matters not a *whit* > whether it is "useful" or "useless." If. And if so they would not be introduced at all. > > I could make the same argument about inferred end tags in HTML. > (Inferred elements are just a special case, where both the start and > end tags are optional.) > > > > I disagree strongly. XHTML is a *huge* barrier. CMS's that reliably > > > produce XHTML are rare to nonexistent. > > > You tend to turn simple things into rocket science. > > Writing a CMS that reliably produces well-formed XHTML is "simple"? > > You should write one then. The world will thank you. I don't need it. > If the idea of MathML in tag soup bothers you, sorry, but it's too > late. That ship has sailed. It is not my fault. -- _______________________________________________ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze
Received on Tuesday, 3 October 2006 17:28:28 UTC