RE: MathML-Presentation specs criticized. from Tim Bagot on 2002-04-17 (www-math@w3.org from April 2002)

From: Tim Bagot <tsb-w3-math-0001@earth.li>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:38:17 +0000 (UTC)
To: <www-math@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204170731510.1081-100000@213-152-38-96.dsl.eclipse.net.uk>

At 2002-04-17T00:15-0400, Jimmy Cerra wrote:-

[...]
> I feel there should be a better way to combine presentation and
> semantic markup  I still don't know why a generic scheme for either combining
> generic presentation** markup and semantics or extending presentation markup so
> authors can specify the exact meaning of their presentation markup isn't
> necessary or in the specs(did I use a double negative!?!?).

Er, what about 5.3.2 "Fine-grained Parallel Markup" and 5.3.3 "Parallel
Markup via Cross-References: id and xref"? They allow you to associate
presentation and semantics not only for the whole expression but for each
subexpression, which seems to be what you're after here.

Tim Bagot

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 03:38:45 UTC