Re: several messages about New Vocabularies in text/html

David Carlisle wrote:

>>  _Doubling_ the number of elements allowed in text/html just so that all
>>  those elements can be ignored seems like a fundamentally bad idea. (It also
>> more than doubles the number of elements that the parser has to know about.)
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary to mention the content mathml elements in html5?
> So long as the html5 parser knows to get from <foo> to </foo> and has
> generic rules on fixing things up if the input isn't well formed.
> The rule doesn't need to know anything about the specific elements
> inside the annotation-xml, just when you get to the </annotation-xml>
> close any open elements on the stack of open elements until you get back
> in sync. (If </annotation-xml>) is missing as well it would be inserted
> by the rules for fixing up the <semantics> or some other ancestor that
> is closed. There will of course be details to sort out, but html needs
> this anyway, surely?  Aside from mathematics, what happens if I just
> stick <foo><wobble>Hello</wobble> <wobble>world</wobble></foo> in the
> middle of a paragraph? Surely you have rules to get a consistent DOM out
> of that without having any special knowledge of these elements don't
> you?

It depends if you want them to end up in the correct namespace in the DOM or 
not. If they don't end up in the correct namespace then the seamless 
export-to-computer-algebra use case will not work without changes to the 
importing application. If we are going to require such changes anyway we could 
just make <annotation-xml> parse as CDATA in the HTML5 parser and let the 
importing application do the conversion to a Content MathML DOM itself.

-- 
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
  -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 10:48:36 UTC