- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 16:34:21 +0100 (BST)
- To: mura034@attglobal.net
- CC: www-math@w3.org, simonstl@simonstl.com, dan@dankohn.com
> We are willing to update the example or even omit it if you like. I think we'd _like_ to have a media type for MathML. While, as you say, namespaces are a more appropriate mechanism for inline embedded MathML in a larger document, having MathML expressions existing in indidual files that are referenced is also a very real possibility, not least for including MathML into HTML (as opposed to XHTML) documents where placing the MathML inline isn't really possible in any standards conforming way. Others could tell you more about this as there are implementations using mime types for this purpose, I believe. > In particular, if you need specialized > fragment identifiers, MathMl doesn't have any extra mechanisms here over and above XML mechanisms, so currently id and hopefully soon xpointer etc. > [useful references omitted] Thanks for the reading matter:-) > Is text/mathml registered at IANA? No (I don't think so), which was why we thought we should recommend something else! > x-* is probably not a good idea. RFC 2048 is quite clear about that > (see below). We knew that a proposal for XML related mime types was being developed but hadn't noticed that it was so far advanced (and used MathML as an example!) so we were/are planning to suggest using an x- until the proposal for XML media types was finalised, but it now seems that within the timescale of preparing MathML for REC, your XML media types proposal will be available in at least `almost final' form, so perhaps we should look again at the wording about this in the mathml draft. This is a personal message (as was the message I sent originally:-) Not an agreed group response, obviously we'll have to discuss it within the group, we look forward to seeing your next draft! David
Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 11:36:32 UTC