- From: Ron Ausbrooks <ron.ausbrooks@mackichan.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:13:47 -0700
- To: "'Benjamin C. Chang'" <Ben.Chang@oracle.com>, "'www-dom@w3.org'" <www-dom@w3.org>, "'w3c-math-wg@w3.org'" <w3c-math-wg@w3.org>
Benjamin, Many apologies! Your original message had gotten lost in my mailbox... In fact, I had been trying to figure out whether my inquiry had been sent to the wrong place for a while now. Yes, absolutely I think we're satisfied. Thanks very much for your consideration. ron -----Original Message----- From: w3c-math-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-math-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Benjamin C. Chang Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:06 PM To: Ron Ausbrooks; 'www-dom@w3.org'; 'w3c-math-wg@w3.org' Subject: Re: Document Object Model (DOM) Level 3 Validation Specification Since we have not heard otherwise, we are assuming that you have no objections to our resolution. Thx, Ben "Benjamin C. Chang" wrote: > We considered your proposal. We decided against incorporating > it into the validation spec; however, if groups such as yours wish > to add such extensions on their own, that would be ok. We will > add documentation to that effect. > > Please let us know if you are satisfied (or not) with the resolution. > > Thx, > Ben > > Ron Ausbrooks wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > The Math Working Group has reviewed the DOM Level 3 Validation > > Specification, and we have no objections to it. > > > > However, we'd like to inquire about the possibility of more stringent > > validation for particular XML dialects. In some cases notably MathML and > > HTML) there are restrictions in the recommendations which aren't codifiable > > in a DTD or W3C XML Schema. Do you feel that it would be appropriate for us > > to define an extension of the NodeEditVAL interface for the MathML DOM, > > adding a new CheckTypeVAL constant so that validation would include these > > non-codifiable restrictions? (This would be named something like > > "MATHML_STRICT_VALIDITY_CHECK", and would of necessity includes > > STRICT_VALIDITY_CHECK.) A feature string such as "MATHML-VAL-DOC" would be > > needed as well. Or do you see this as exceeding the mandate of validation? > > > > thanks, > > Ron Ausbrooks
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 18:17:40 UTC