Re: Exploring new vocabularies for HTML

David Carlisle wrote
>> What I think is problematic is using product-specific formats instead
>> of Content MathML. 
> yes it is problematic. In MathML3 we're trying (slowly) to formalize the
> specification of the annotations used (usual diffiulties surrounding
> whether we should use the legacy names or new ones based on mime tyes or
> namespaces or..., but that doesn't directly concern this thread)
> personally I think there would be some hope of agreement along the lines
> of specifying that html+mathml used a profile of mathml that only
> allowed content mathml as a annotation-xml (so renderers only need
> understand presentation mathml) but that annottation-xml was confined to
> just this one use.
Since we are all speaking just for ourselves, let me say that this 
sounds like a good way to go forward. I am no more of a friend of 
vendor-specific markup than you are.


 Prof. Dr. Michael Kohlhase,       Office: Research 1, Room 62 
 Professor of Computer Science     Campus Ring 12, 
 School of Engineering & Science   D-28759 Bremen, Germany
 Jacobs University Bremen*         tel/fax: +49 421 200-3140/-493140 
 skype: m.kohlhase   * International University Bremen until Feb. 2007

Received on Sunday, 30 March 2008 14:17:10 UTC