- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:04:31 +0100
- To: mhucka@caltech.edu
- Cc: jsdevitt@stratumtek.com, www-math@w3.org
Your message reminds me of something else: I forgot to mention that I also looked at the DTD for MathML 2, and it does not appear to define e-notation either. The DTD does not constrain the value in any way, so (unlike the case with the schema that you reported) e-notation is allowed. Note this actually matchess the prose text of the spec which does specify this as an open list with some pre-defined possibilities. By having it unconstrained in the schema/dtd you allow extension but also don't catch typos (which are more common) The approach taken (here and more generally in the schema) is to have a tighter schema and if you extend the list of type names you need to extend the schema that you are using to match. mainly the DTD takes the other approach that the DTD is rather lax. There is a MathMLStrict option in the dtd (see the description in appendix A) which does tighten up many things (eg forcing mfrac to have exactly two children) and could have constrained this list but currently it does not. David -- The LaTeX Companion http://www.awprofessional.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0201362996 http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201362996/202-7257897-0619804 ________________________________________________________________________ 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, 13 May 2004 05:05:01 UTC