From: Roger B. Sidje <rbs@maths.uq.edu.au>

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:41:16 +1000

Message-ID: <4522F51C.1070707@maths.uq.edu.au>

To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

CC: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, www-math@w3.org, dev-tech-mathml@lists.mozilla.org

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:41:16 +1000

Message-ID: <4522F51C.1070707@maths.uq.edu.au>

To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

CC: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, www-math@w3.org, dev-tech-mathml@lists.mozilla.org

On 4/10/2006 9:19 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > So basically, it's the same as tag soup. I don't really see an advantage > to going down that route (with its complexities like namespace prefixes, > etc) One could also think that prefixed tags are random tags in general. Is it because you are thinking globally w.r.t. multiple mixings? Such as <m:tag> <n:tag>...</n:tag> </m:tag>? (I am not sure what IE does if n: is attached to a plug-in.) If it just for the single MathML containment, the starting patch that I made emulates what IE+MathPlayer does: <html xmlns:m="mathml-namespace">, then <m:math>...</m:math> in the document or <math xmlns="mathml-namespace">...</math> with no need for a declaration in <html> (So it is a proof-of-concept of that emulation, and as the patch showed, not that invasive to emulate.) --- RBSReceived on Tuesday, 3 October 2006 23:43:11 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:38 UTC
*