Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com> writes: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Max Froumentin wrote: > >> A few examples to play with: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03/27-mathml/valid.mml > > Is application/mathml+xml registered? No it's not. This is why the w3c server should perhaps not send it and use application/xml instead. Personally, I'd rather it being used and recognised by the validator. After all, it is suggested by RFC3023, and if there is going to be a MathML mime type, it'll be that. However I'll remind the WG that maybe we want to register it properly anyway. > That document has no preamble. In the absence of a doctype, none > of the validators will validate it It has no preamble on purpose. If the validator gets mime type information, or a file extension it should be able to infer that the document is MathML. >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03/27-mathml/valid.xml >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03/27-mathml/invalid.xml > > results as expected. Yes, I was merely suggesting that upon reporting success in the case of the first example, it would be nice to have the validator say that it is valid *MathML* and display the valid mathml icon. Max.Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 04:20:08 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 September 2011 18:14:11 GMT