W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > August 2010

[Bug 9887] parsing algorithm should allow HTML content in MathML <annotation-xml>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:42:31 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OmCsZ-0004ha-2M@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9887





--- Comment #21 from David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>  2010-08-19 21:42:30 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Oh another option is to just always assume <annotation-xml> is an HTML
> integration point (as we do with the <mo>/<mi>/etc elements), but then we
> wouldn't support the Content MathML stuff there, you'd have to give a <math>
> element to get back to MathML. I assume that's a non-starter.

Actually that was one of the other options the WG discussed earlier today.
Personally I think I may prefer it as it would have the good property (I think)
of meaning that if the annotation has well formed content it will always be
parsed completely, but perhaps have elements placed in the wrong namespace (if
<math> is not used)

For many uses that wouldn't matter (as the attribution isn't actually used,
it's just some mathml generating tool has added some annotations as possible
fallbacks.
If you wanted to make the annotation render (I think) you'd have to use some
javascript to re-namespace the mathml elements back into the mathml namespace,
which is a bit of a pain but perhaps easy to explain (text/html parsing doesn't
really do xml namespaces) and certainly a lot easier to fix up than trying to
fix up the parse tree after the current html parser has forced the surrounding
math element to close.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 21:42:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:21 UTC