W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > October 2010

Re: correct DOCTYPES to use on MathML 3.0 documents

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:27:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4CB37339.7040604@nag.co.uk>
To: Frédéric WANG <fred.wang@free.fr>
CC: W3C MathML Discussion <www-math@w3.org>
On 11/10/2010 20:55, Frédéric WANG wrote:
> I'm just curious:
> - will a DTD for XHTML 1.1 + MathML 3.0 + SVG 1.1 provided, as it is the
> case for MathML 2?
> - will you also give a RelaxNG schema for combining all these languages,
> as described in section A.2.6?

sorry, I didn't get time to make the dtd I promised earlier, but will 
get to it soon, but you raise some interesting questions.

Historically, as noted in the (old) page


The mathml+xhtml dtd we distributed with mathml2 was just the 
xhtml/svg/mathml driver file with option to include mathml and exclude 
svg, expanded out by an xml parser.

the driver file itself was produced by the (old) HTML Working group as 
part of their XHTML Modularisation work.

I had been planning to simply update the expanded xhtml+mathml dtd file 
dropping in mathml3 in place of mathml2 but otherwise leaving things the 
same, but perhaps it would make sense to include svg (which version?) by 
default as well now? Should the html part attempt to model html5 or 
stick with xhtml1?

For Relax NG combinations I should probably liaise with Henri Sivonen.
His Validator.nu service has RelaxNG schemas for html5 (so 
html+svg+mathml) so it would probably make sense to end up including the 
same flavours of html and svg)

Incidentally, for a browser, the main dtd to include would be


so that it uses the right entity definitions

Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 20:28:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:43 UTC