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 20:50:11 +0100
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <86pu1o5v64.fsf@sophia.inria.fr>
Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com> writes:

>>	 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.
>
> It doesn't need to be explicitly supported.  If the validator just
> takes it as XML and accepts a FPI, that's enough.

No it doesn't need to, but given the choice I'd go for supporting 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.
>
> But your valid.xml does have a preamble, and that is sufficient for
> the validators to identify it as MathML 2.0.

OK, I stand corrected.

> Please don't let your WG specify rules about preambles that would be
> in conflict with generic XML rules.

What WG? This is not a WG initiative, don't worry.

> We can say the .xml is
>   (a) valid XML, and
>   (b) MathML 2.0
    
    Yes, please add (b) to the report.

> That's from the FPI.  Adding the MathML icon would be straightforward.

...and the icon, even if some find it not right (but I'll remind them
that not two are alike).

Max.
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 14:51:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:01 GMT