W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Exploring new vocabularies for HTML

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:16:40 +0200
Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org
Message-Id: <2BD320E3-EA5B-46A4-B36E-E16F653EDB78@iki.fi>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

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/  

Henri Sivonen
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2008 21:17:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:27 UTC