Re: comments on MathML last call

Hello David,

Many thanks for your replies. I'm glad to see that our comments
seem to be useful. I assume that you don't need a formal reply,
because the comments are being implemented.

On this occasion, I just wanted to touch too other points:

First, you say "There are currently few if any applications that
can use these characters". What applications are you speaking
about? Both IE and nsgmls have been fixed, and these are the
only applications with these problems that we are aware of.

Second, I just had a look at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-MathML2-20030411/isoamsa.html.
Some of the glyphs come with boxes around them, and for some
others, there is just a gray box. I'm not sure there is
a need anymore to distinguish different classes of characters.


Regards,  Martin.

At 18:41 03/05/27 +0100, David Carlisle wrote:


>Martin,
>
>Thank you for your comments on the mathml2 2nd edition draft.
>
>
>     Overall: It would be extremely nice to have an index of elements
>     and attributes. Given all the technology used for producing the
>     spec, this shouldn't be a problem at all.
>
>The internal version now has a new appendix containing indexes of
>attributes and elements, so this should appear in the next draft.
>
>
>   A.2.2.2 Plane 1 Characters
>
>   As discussed earlier, what this section tries to do
>   (to provide workarounds for non-compliant XML implementations)
>   is unacceptable. This is even more so in that the problems in
>   IE, according to our knowledge, have been fixed. This section
>   should be removed, and the corresponding DTD fragments fixed
>   to eliminate the "plane1D" parameter entity.
>
>
>In the internal version of appendix A this section has been deleted
>and this plane1 -> BMP mapping feature is no longer used in the
>xhtml+mathml dtd so it will use the same plane 1 definitions as the
>mathml dtd. So the next release of the spec and DTD should address this
>comment.
>
>There are currently few if any applications that can use these
>characters, but we accept your point that the spec itself should be
>describing the standard situation not any temporary workaround that may
>be required.
>
>
>
>     B Content Markup Validation Grammar
>
>      >>>>
>     [4]     Char     ::=      Space | [#x21 - #xFFFD] | [#x00010000 -
>     #x7FFFFFFFF]  /* valid XML chars */
>      >>>>
>
>     This production is clearly wrong, and needs to be fixed.
>
>
>Fixed in the cvs sources of the spec, thanks.
>
>
>
>[Your other comments about the text in the spec haven't been addressed
>yet]
>
>David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
>service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
>anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
>http://www.star.net.uk
>________________________________________________________________________

Received on Saturday, 31 May 2003 17:35:01 UTC