W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > June 2010

Re: HTML OK in <mtext> but not in <annotation-xml>, etc. [was: HTML5 with MathML has problem with numerical attrubute values]

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:52:03 +0900
To: Joe Java <cop3252@yahoo.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100615055202.GA49302@sideshowbarker>
Joe Java <cop3252@yahoo.com>, 2010-06-14 21:03 -0700:

> I think that the present W3C validator is incorrectly validating some MathML documents.
> The validator accepts lines like so:
> (from https://eyeasme.com/Joe/MathML/HTML5/basics.xhtml)
> <semantics>
>   <annotation-xml encoding="application/xhtml+xml">
>     <input xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"  id="input12" value="?" size="1" alt="?" />
>   </annotation-xml>
> </semantics>
> I think this should be rejected because:
> Section 4.2.6 of W3C MathML 2.0 Specification 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/chapter4.html#contm.synsem
> Third paragraph
> NOTE: The specification clearly states that the SECOND or
> subsequent children of the 'semantic' element are annotation or
> annotation-xml.  The validator is validating documents that have
> the FIRST child of a 'semantic' tag as annotation-xml.

Yep, the current W3C Markup Validator (non-HTML5) is not in
conformance with the MathML 2.0 spec in this case.

I suspect there may be other cases where it's not in conformance
with the content-model constraints in the spec. Almost certainly
there are a number of places where it's not adequately enforcing
datatype constraints that the spec places on certain attribute

If you feel strongly enough about it being a particular problem
that it's not properly conforming to the constraints on the
<semantics> content model, I suggest filing a bug:


But fwiw, any bug that has to do with schema deficiencies in the
existing validator is not something I would be the person fixing
(I just deal with the (X)HTML5+ARIA+SVG+MathML backend). I also
don't think it's likely to ever be a priority for the people who
are maintaining the existing W3C Markup Validator. (I'm not saying
that to discourage you, but instead to just try to make it clear
where things stand.)


Michael(tm) Smith
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 05:52:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:18:01 UTC