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

Re: correct DOCTYPES to use on MathML 3.0 documents

From: Joe Java <cop3252@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <752422.39201.qm@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Cc: www-math@w3.org


--- On Fri, 8/27/10, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote:

> From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: correct DOCTYPES to use on MathML 3.0 documents
> To: "Joe Java" <cop3252@yahoo.com>
> Cc: www-math@w3.org
> Date: Friday, August 27, 2010, 7:03 PM
> On 27/08/2010 21:27, Joe Java wrote:
> > Hello MathML Community,
> >
> > My question is, What are the correct DOCTYPES to use
> for writing
> > valid HTML/XHTML with MathML 3.0 documents.
> >
> > The old MathML 2.0 spec has this DOCTYPE:
> > <!DOCTYPE math
> >      PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD MathML
> 2.0//EN"
> >         
>    "http://www.w3.org/Math/DTD/mathml2/mathml2.dtd" [
> >      <!ENTITY % MathMLstrict
> "INCLUDE">
> > ]>
> >
> > and as a convenience, a version of the XHTML DTD,
> extended with
> > this MathML module, is also provided:
> > <!DOCTYPE html
> >      PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 plus
> MathML 2.0//EN"
> >         
>    "http://www.w3.org/Math/DTD/mathml2/xhtml-math11-f.dtd"
> >>
> >
> > The new MathML 3.0 spec lists this DOCTYPE:
> > <!DOCTYPE math
> >      PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD MathML
> 3.0//EN"
> >         
>    "http://www.w3.org/Math/DTD/mathml3/mathml3.dtd">
> >
> > but does NOT list a convenience version of the XHTML
> DTD, extended
> > with this new MathML module.
> > Was this accidentally left out?
> 
> Things seemed to be changing rather a lot on the HTML side
> of things 
> that it was better to not fix the state in the spec,
> especially as the 
> normative grammar is Relax NG rather than DTD for MathML
> 3.
> 
> However we do make an XHTML1 +MathML3 DTD (just the same as
> the MathML 2 
> + XHTML DTD, with MathML2 switched)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Math/DTD/
> 
> has a placeholder for it, but it's not currently live.
> Thanks for the 
> reminder, I need to do a couple of sanity checks but will
> make that live 
> as soon as possible and report back to you and the list. I
> expect that 
> should be be this weekend, sometime.
> 
> 
> > What is the correct way to produce a valid XHTML
> document that uses
> > the MathML 3.0 DTD?
> 
> As above, but with 2.0 replaced by 3.0, however generally
> speaking I;d 
> recommend (even for MathML2) not explictly using a DOCTYPE
> (which is 
> only needed if you use entities for characters)

So it should be like so?

<!DOCTYPE html
      PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 plus MathML 3.0//EN"
      "http://www.w3.org/Math/DTD/mathml3/mathml3.dtd">  


Without a DOCTYPE how does the validator know what recommendation to
validate to?


> >
> > The new HTML5 spec has optional MATHML built in.
> > The version of MathML listed is the latest recommended
> version.
> > The latest recommended version is now 2.0, but soon
> will be 3.0.
> >
> > Will the optional MathML used in HTML5 be MathML 3.0
> or MathML 2.0?
> That is a choice for the HTML WG, but as you say, currently
> they reference
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML/
> 
> which is the "latest mathml version" link which will be
> MathML 3 after 
> it becomes a rec.
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML/
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/
> 
> being the  URLs to versions 1 2 and 3 respectively.
> 

The W3C validator does not YET correctly validate HTML5 documents that 
use MathML.

For example this is a valid document, but the W3C validator fails to correctly validate it:

https://www.eyeasme.com/Joe/MathML/HTML5_MathML_browser_test


Is it official that HTML5 will use MathML 3 as the MathML version when validating?


> >
> > Joe
> >
> David
> 


      
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 01:08:39 UTC

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