W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > March 2002

Re: 2 suggestions

From: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:18:24 +0100
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <86pu1phwyn.fsf@sophia.inria.fr>
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.

Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 04:20:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:32 UTC