W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org > July 2012

RE: Hypermedia - Why

From: Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:30:58 +0000
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
CC: "public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org" <public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1CD55F04538DEA4F85F3ADF7745464AF1AE2B3D1@S-BSC-MBX4.nrn.nrcan.gc.ca>
> >> href="" altimg="" cdgroup="" src="" definitionURL=""
> >>
> >> These all have a defined meaning in _MathML_ and nothing would be 
> >> gained (and those meanings would be lost) if one or more 
> of them were 
> >> changed to use xml:href.
> >
> > In the spec I was reading, definitionURL says that it is a URI to a 
> > CD. What language is the dictionary available in?  What format?
> whatever you like, English prose, mathematica code, ....

OK, but my point is, how does the client know what format and language is appropriate
in the context in which the mathml is being consumed?
I think xml:type and xml:hreflang could help, but maybe there's only one
place to put a definitionURL so there can't be more than one value?

> >
> > I can see that in application/mathml+xml there is an definition of 
> > their meaning.  But what about a composite document which encloses 
> > some mathml and some mapml, say.  Should I use @href, @src from the 
> > MathML definition?  Or use xlink:href?  OK, there is no xlink:src.
> You use mathml attributes on mathml elements. That seems pretty clear.

Do you mind if we use definitionURI as the hypothetical example?  It has some interesting characteristics
that could be modelled using xml:type, xml:rel, xml:hreflang, I think?  I guess 
we can forget about using xml:href, since it is already cast in concrete.  But
those other attributes could be useful, unless MathML has accounted for that
aspect of things?

> MathML is _usually_ embedded in something else (xhtml, html, docbook,
> tei) but 

Agreed, mathml is usually embedded in prose which explains it or gives context to it.
I personally think this is the normal state of markup that we're missing out on, ie recombined
that is, the ability to use other people's well-defined concepts in our own 
documents.  I personally think having standard links would help, not hurt that
but having a bit of a time explaining it.

> the meaning of mathml's attributes don't change.

Nor would the equivalent ones in xml:.  Although they would have colons in the
name, which I admit is a bit of a barrier.

> >
> >
> >>
> >> I know something about MathML which is why I use it as an example, 
> >> but I don't see why editors of other languages would feel any 
> >> different about the URI attributes in languages that they maintain.
> >
> > I agree.  I would not force these things on anybody, but 
> they should  
> > be there if you need them.
> Sorry to keep pushing but that isn't enough. Just to say 
> something should be specified because it might be useful if 
> you need them is not sufficient if you can't supply an 
> example of at least one case where they actually _could_ be used.

Could we use the definitionURL as an example?  Maybe omit xml:href 
for the moment.

> > And if they are there _in the future_, it may be that language 
> > designers (and in XML, isn't that just about everybody) may 
> decide to 
> > use them.
> I am asking why? Given all the evidence I see is that 
> language designers would not use them even if they were defined.

These attributes haven't been proposed before.  At least Google did not
reveal.  Maybe I'm mistaken.

> >
> >>
> >>
> >> So I would say that the jury is still out and as yet no 
> example has 
> >> been shown where an application could use the proposed attributes.
> >
> > Why is it I feel my feet only touching by their toes?
> sorry:-) but as shown in the parallel discussion over in micro-xml.
> It's best to understand the ground rules before starting. I'm 
> only pushing you to provide examples as no one else is 
> offering to provide them and I honestly can not come up with 
> any myself.

Well, everyone is pretty busy, I'm sure, and now that I've got everyone all
agitated it might be wise to not step forward too readily :-). 

We could come up with hypothetical examples, but maybe if definitionURI could
be used we could see it from your perspective.

Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 16:31:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:06 UTC