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

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:23:50 +1000

Message-ID: <452CAA16.2080702@maths.uq.edu.au>

To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

CC: White Lynx <whitelynx@operamail.com>, www-math@w3.org

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:23:50 +1000

Message-ID: <452CAA16.2080702@maths.uq.edu.au>

To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

CC: White Lynx <whitelynx@operamail.com>, www-math@w3.org

I am all for for MathML-in-HTML5, retaining the <math> syntax as we have come to know and enjoy it. But what I gather so far is that IE+MathPlayer only supports prefixed tags, with the prefix declared in the <html>. (If I understand it correctly, it doesn't even work with <math xmlns="mathml-namespace">...</math> when served as text/html. Do clarify if this isn't the case.) I also gather that MathPlayer can't do much about this, as IE only hands them the MathML-island, right? Hence, either I go off and add support for the plain <math>...</math>, which will only work in Mozilla out-of-the-box and wouldn't be quite an overture to IE+MathPlayer (without yet again content negotiation or some JS trickeries by authors), or to get seamless interoperability, HTML5 may need a provision for prefixed tags (at least in the case of MathML), and this is where we have got so far in the discussion. The starting patch that I indicated in the opening already supports prefixed tags, i.e., <html xmlns:m="mathml-namespace">, with <m:math>...</m:math> in the document, as well as the typical <math xmlns="mathml-namespace">...</math> with no need for a declaration in the <html> tag. --- RBS On 11/10/2006 7:26 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, White Lynx wrote: > >>What we say is that having two versions of MathML will not help us to >>consolidate efforts, instead it will dissipate already small resources >>that we have today. > > > The proposal doesn't create a new version of MathML, it just provides a > new way of serialising MathML content, and generating a DOM from that > content (deserialising it). The MathML language is left intact -- the DOM > is the same, the rules for processing the DOM are the same, and the > semantics for such a DOM are the same. > > > >>For example your proposal breaks compatibility with MSIE/MathPlayer, >>compatibility which was achived only recently, it took several years for >>them to recognize application/xhtml+xml and give people opportunity to >>serve the same markup to Mozilla and MSIE. > > > That will continue to work and continue to be just as conformant. The > proposal just seems to be adding a new serialisation/deserialisation > format, it doesn't stop people from using XHTML. > > > Anyway, I'm not the one you have to convince. If you don't want Roger to > experiment, convince him, not me. I'm just looking for implementation > experience so that, going forward, I can make educated decisions. >Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 08:32:28 GMT

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