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

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:38:58 +1000

Message-ID: <45231EC2.9050800@maths.uq.edu.au>

To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

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

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:38:58 +1000

Message-ID: <45231EC2.9050800@maths.uq.edu.au>

To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

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

On 4/10/2006 10:38 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Paul Topping wrote: > [...] One could define that >>namespace implicitly in HTML5 by stating in the HTML5 spec that <math> >>means MathML 2.0 or whatever. Of course, this locks MathML to one >>specific version -- not a good thing. > > The proposal that I understand Roger intends to experiment with is making > any tag in a particular list of tags be added to the DOM as a node not in > the XHTML namespace but in the MathML namespace. It is possible to stick to <math>...</math> and make it to Just Work (tm) -- with the implicit understanding that Paul mentioned above. (For one thing, it will cut the verbosity a little bit, <math><mi>x</mi></math>. But... Although copy-pasting will often have the xmlns which will then be meaningless in Gecko but will assure IE parity for authors.) Maybe I have been too used to xmlns... Paul, David, fast-fowarding your thinking in time, what is your opinion on this? Also, can bare <math>...</math> work in IE+MathPlayer out-of-the-box without awakening old demons and having authors do yet again content-negotiation or some JS trickeries? --- RBSReceived on Wednesday, 4 October 2006 02:40:14 UTC

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