W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > December 2007

Re: annotation-xml and annotation encoding

From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:36:55 +0100
Message-Id: <C7F62DB9-1A53-4B3F-A875-AEC346028DCD@activemath.org>
Cc: www-math@w3.org
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>

Le 17 déc. 07 à 14:37, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
>>> and <annotation-xml>. The spec gives four tokens leaving their  
>>> meaning implicit: MathML-Presentation, MathML-Content, TeX and  
>>> OpenMath.
>> In the examnples, right ?
> No, those are from the spec prose.

We'll have a look.

>> There is, indeed, no central table of suggested encoding values  
>> for well-known data-types.
> Are implementors expected to find the values from the output of  
> other MathML products?

No, that table was just not committed yet. Outside of formats close- 
to-mathml, it is clear that bilateral negotiation should be the way, or?

>>> In the MathML 3.0 draft, the encoding attribute on <annotation>  
>>> seems to take a MIME type, such as text/latex or text/maple, or a  
>>> product name token like Maple, Mathematica or TeX.
>> I believe that the order should be:
>> - try to use a value that's documented in the spec
>> - if there's none such use a mime-type
> E.g. for Maple, the spec uses both "text/maple" and "Maple".

I doubt we should specify the name of the Maple (linear syntax?)  
encoding, right?
I agree we should do it consistently though. Thanks for the hint.

>>> In the MathML 3.0 draft the encoding attribute on <annotation- 
>>> xml> is said to take a namespace URI but examples use tokens such  
>>> as OpenMath.
>> I don't remember seeing this... In the spec to come out soon, this  
>> has gone away, I think.
> I'm looking at
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-MathML3-20071214/chapter5.html
> Is there a new draft coming soon or was that the spec you are  
> referring to?

I'm sorry, I missed the announcement and the web-page hasn't been  
updated yet.
Indeed, I see the namespace proposal there... sorry... I'll have to  
discuss this.

>>> <annotation> and <annotation-xml> appear to be so vaguely defined  
>>> that I have to doubt their interoperable implementability. Have  
>>> they been implemented in applications that consumes MathML? If  
>>> they have been implemented, have they been implemented  
>>> interoperably? If they are now interoperably implemented, it  
>>> would be good for the spec to define how to consume them in the  
>>> way that is interoperable.
>> We really need to share more about defining the interoperability.
> Are there so far apps that consume each other's annotations?

The part of chapter 7 is actually extracted of something that works  
between products of Design-Science and MS Word. There are applications!

>>> describe the "source" for the MathML encoded in its ODF  
>>> (OpenDocument
>>> Formula) files. This works very well within Openoffice and related
>>> products, which use this information when re-reading files.
> Interesting, but does any other product read that annotation?

At least, the spec seems to be the way out of relying on "text/plain"  
to store MathML, right?


Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 15:37:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:39 UTC