W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > March 2012

MathML3 specification is inconsistent about qualifier content of non-strict constructors

From: Andrew Miller <ak.miller@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:34:10 +1300
Message-ID: <4F67ECA2.2030102@auckland.ac.nz>
To: www-math@w3.org
Hi all,

In most of the MathML 3 specification, the content model is described 
using the 'content' field, and if qualifiers are allowed in the content, 
this is mentioned in the 'Content' row of the table.

Throughout most of the specification, mentioning something in the 
'Qualifiers' row for an element doesn't imply that the qualifier can be 
a child element of that element, and instead implies that the qualifier 
is used with the parent apply element - this is explicitly stated in the 
last paragraph of 4.1.5.

However, when constructor elements are defined (for example, in section, qualifiers are listed in the Qualifier row, but not in the 
Content row. The examples (and the 'Parsing MathML' appendix, and the 
transformation rule in, however, contradict the lack of the 
qualifiers in the element content, so it seems that the omission of the 
qualifiers from the 'Content' rows of the constructors must have been 

Best wishes,
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 02:34:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:44 UTC