- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:16:40 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org
On Mar 29, 2008, at 22:21, Ian Hickson wrote: > <semantics> and <annotation-xml> are nice in theory, I agree, but > are they > really necessary? I think there's a great opportunity to use annotation-xml for tree builder scoping in a way that would create Gecko-compatible DOM trees-- like a foreignObject in SVG. I'm skeptical about using annotation-xml for actual annotations, though. (I really don't like using <annotation>/<annotation-xml> for smuggling proprietary or product- specific syntactic alternative for round-tripping that actually ignores MathML on import.) > Something else that would be useful is a summary of the MathML > schema. I > couldn't find anything human-readable in the MathML specs, and the > DTD is > not optimised for casual reading. Is there anything like that > available? There's a RELAX NG Compact Syntax schema for MathML 2.0 in Validator.nu's source repository (derived from Yutaka Furubayashi's RELAX NG schema; converted to RNC and tweaked by me for browser compat and annotation-xml subtrees). You may find it more readable than a DTD. svn co http://svn.versiondude.net/whattf/validator/trunk/schema/mml2/ mml2 -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2008 21:17:26 UTC