- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:30:45 +0100
- To: ian@hixie.ch
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
> But were those implementations then used to exit CR? yes but for cr we needed to show implementations of mathml, not necessarily a renderer that can render mathml-in-xhtml without any assistance in the way of a processing instruction. > Yes; my point was they also have a lot more. For QA purposes, the ideal > test is one that has nothing but the test and the pass criteria; the > current XHTML tests have lots of other stuff that is distracting. A conforming mathml system needn't be able to render xhtml at all. So for such a minimal test purpose you could just use the .mml files (I agree they ought have explicit namespaces). I agree that it is important to have such test files, as there are several important mathml systems that do not handle xhtml. To test such a system you need to render the .mml file and then look at the sibling image file, you don't get the convenience of the xhtml wrapper that shows them both together but that's the way it has to be if you can't rely on having xhtml support. 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 Thursday, 22 April 2004 09:31:41 UTC