Re: Exploring new vocabularies for HTML

David Carlisle <> writes:

> It's not that that is not a valid concern. ideally  you want the rule
> that if any branch of a semantics element is edited, all other branches
> are regenerated (or discarded if that isn't possible) but to simply say
> that sematics shouldn't be supported would be a very backward step.

But part of the idea with html5, illusory or not, is direct authoring.
Automatic regeneration is beyond the pale in that context.

> So the preferred solution is to use presentation mathml on the web page
> and annotate it with the content mathml. To just serve the presentation
> form over the web reduces the semantic content of the document, harms
> accessibility and harms re-use of the expressions. Of course simple
> cases you can re-process the presentation mathml and infer the
> semantics, but in many cases you can not, which is the whole point of
> content mathml.

Is it unreasonable for me to think that semantic seriousness should
live only on the xhtml side, especially if the html5 folk want to bag
semantic annotation?

(I sense semantic seriousness in only a small minority of all math

                                    -- Bill

Received on Sunday, 30 March 2008 19:58:41 UTC