From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>

Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:04:17 -0400

To: dev-tech-mathml@lists.mozilla.org

Cc: www-math@w3.org

Message-ID: <i7wt79xqdq.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:04:17 -0400

To: dev-tech-mathml@lists.mozilla.org

Cc: www-math@w3.org

Message-ID: <i7wt79xqdq.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

Jacques Distler <distler@golem.ph.utexas.edu> writes: > >> 2) Hyperlinks in MathML are <mrow>s with XLink attributes: > >> <mrow xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" > >> xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="..."> ... </mrow> > >Regarding links from inside math: I think the most interoperable > >approach is to allow HTML <a> elements inside <mtext>. > > And what if you want to turn a term in an equation into a hyperlink? > That's what the above construction allows. In the XML world with XLINK, yes. > >Beyond that I would like to see the HTML elements <a>, <em>, and > ><b> (or <strong>) incorporated in the XHTML+MathML document type > >definition as elements that are allowed in <mtext>. > > So you want to change the content model of <mtext> to include (inline?) > XHTML? No, only to include <a>, <em>, and <strong> so that rendering is not a huge challenge for a MathML plugin. And, no, not the MathML document type definition but only the XHTML+MathML document type definition (for use in presentational contexts). > But I think that's orthogonal to the current discussion. It's on point so long as XLINK won't fit in HTML5. Even if the HTML5 folk said yes to XLINK, I think this would be safer. There was also once, may be still is, the idea of href attributes for any element in an XHTML document. That would scale to HTML5, but it presents accessibility challenges. Everyone understands <a>. Keep things simple when you can. -- BillReceived on Monday, 9 October 2006 19:04:39 GMT

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