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

Re: MathML-in-HTML5

From: White Lynx <whitelynx@operamail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:28:17 +0400
To: www-math@w3.org
Message-Id: <20061003172817.B20607AE9F@ws5-10.us4.outblaze.com>

 > I think he was originally speaking against having entity names like 
 > &dagger; 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 GMT

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