- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:57:04 +0100
- To: bzbarsky@MIT.EDU
- CC: hammond@csc.albany.edu, public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org
> but right now the only technically standards-compliant way to have
> MathML in XHTML is to serve the document as application/xml or
> text/xml, without an XHTML doctype,
Personally I tend to use application/xml for various reasons, but I
don't think the above is true. The relevant RFC is rfc3236 defining
xhtml+xml which is explictly aimed at languages defined via xhtml
modularisation, thus includiing xhtml+mathml+svg.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt
says
With respect to XHTML Modularization [XHTMLMOD] and the existence of
XHTML based languages (referred to as XHTML family members) that
are not XHTML 1.0 conformant languages, it is possible that
'application/xhtml+xml' may be used to describe some of these
documents.
Thus serving the document as application/xhtml+xml with an XHTML+MathML
doctype is perfectly standards conformant, and works in browsers even,
although sadly google doesn't seem to like it too much. If you serve the
pages as application or text /xml google does seem to index them correctly
see for example
http://www.google.co.uk/search?%3Aofficial&hs=mPh&q=site%3A+www.nag.com+f08aef
which today, from here, returns the (xslt styled) text/xml document
http://www.nag.com/numeric/fl/manual/xhtml/F08/f08aef.xml
as the first hit.
David
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 19:59:30 UTC