- From: Pepping, Simon (ELS) <S.Pepping@elsevier.nl>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:11:16 -0000
- To: "'Robert Miner'" <RobertM@dessci.com>
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
Robert Miner [mailto:RobertM@dessci.com] wrote on 26 February 2003 18:31: > Hi Simon, > > There are a couple of validation tools in the WebEQ Developers > Suite that can be used in batch mode. In particular, the WebEQ > Equation Server can be used on the command line or from a script to > run through an XML file, checking each MathML instance, and dumping > errors to a file. The validation is not quite as strong as that in > MathPlayer, but it is far better than merely validating against the > DTD. Since validation is really a side-effect of the Equation Server > (which is aimed primarily at batch conversion of MathML), the > validation is not as flexible, nor the output as detailed as one might > like. But it is a good start. That sounds good, although it is a limitation that the validation is not a goal in itself. > You can grab an evaluation version of the WebEQ Developers Suite at > http://www.dessci.com/dl. I will grab the evaluation copy and test it. I get the impression that most MathML users rely on the validation by their authoring tool. Is that right? So we seem to be adding a new aspect to MathML validation: validating documents containing MathML from various sources, independently of the creation tools. While I was working on this, I started to wonder why the DTD is formulated in such a loose manner. At first sight several of the requirements listed in section 3.1.3.2 could have been enforced in the DTD (that would only be for presentation MathML; I am not sure whether the same would be true for content MathML). Or are there hidden problems, which I will discover when I try to work out this idea? With kind regards, Simon Pepping DTD Development and Maintenance Elsevier s.pepping@elsevier.com www.elsevier.com/locate/sgml
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 09:18:10 UTC