- From: Michael Kohlhase <m.kohlhase@jacobs-university.de>
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:16:31 +0200
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- CC: hsivonen@iki.fi, public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org
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. Michael -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 m.kohlhase@jacobs-university.de http://kwarc.info/kohlhase skype: m.kohlhase * International University Bremen until Feb. 2007 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 30 March 2008 14:17:10 UTC