- From: Pepping, Simon (ELS) <S.Pepping@elsevier.nl>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:40:40 +0100
- To: "'David Carlisle'" <davidc@nag.co.uk>, link@pobox.com
- Cc: www-math@w3.org, www-validator@w3.org
David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk] wrote on 20 April 2003 11:06: > Makes sense to me. Apart from the directory/web site layout I > have long > been pushing for a "grand unified entity definition" set that would > not be so closely tied to mathematics and would be consistent between > mathml and xhtml on the w3c side and also docbook and tei etc further > wide. Currently no two of those have compatible entity definitions > (see a long diatribe on this at http://www.w3.org/Math/characters) That would be a very good idea. I tend to consider the various entity definition sets as identical, but I know they are not. Elsevier's DTDs have a large set of entity definitions, but it surprises me each time again when I realize that this is just a side effect of including the MathML DTD. With kind regards, Simon Pepping DTD Development and Maintenance Elsevier s.pepping@elsevier.com www.elsevier.com/locate/sgml
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 03:48:08 UTC