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

Re: Wish for MathML 3: version attribute

From: Chris Chiasson <chris@chiasson.name>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 01:45:00 -0500
Message-ID: <acbec1a40709172345o2c9e1aadj870581c296ac0404@mail.gmail.com>
To: R.W.Kaye@bham.ac.uk
Cc: www-math@w3.org

On 9/17/07, Richard Kaye <R.W.Kaye@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>   <math version="MathML3.0" >...</math>
>   <math version="p-MathML3.0+OpenMath2.0"  >...</math>
>   <math version="p-MathML3.0"  >...</math>
>   <math version="MathML3.0" dtd="important" >...</math>
> What do others think?

In DocBook, this is what was recommended for documents (or portions
thereof) that use SVG and MathML:

<someElementName
xmlns='http://docbook.org/ns/docbook'
version='5.0-extension MathML-2.0 SVG-1.1'>

This tells an RNG/RNC validator to load a (single) combined
Docbook+MathML+SVG schema.

The same situation is visible in the quotation above with OpenMath in
the version attribute.

I guess my question is:
Why is it necessary to specify the type of content within a version attribute?

Why not build a schema that says:
XX elements from YY namespaces are allowed in ZZ spots.

My suggestion means that more complex interactions between elements in
different namespaces would still require the old (monolithic schema)
approach, so that is one mark against it.

-- 
http://chris.chiasson.name/
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2007 07:00:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:02:34 UTC