Re: empty element syntax

> For XML one may use either "<br></br>" or "<br/>", but "<br>" alone
> violates the "well-formed" requirement (XML spec).

Agree Bill, docs containing single <br>, <none>, <mrow>, will not work in
a XML framework, _including_ Microsoft 2007 XML technologies (do not
forget that Microsoft AVALON is direct competitor of Mozilla XUL).

Paul Topping asked why the same people rejecting HTML in the past now is
so interested in reviving it. Lynx asked many times why Mozilla is moving
in this way now. Any suggestion for empty element syntax, m: prefix
namespaces or XML islands á la IE are rejected and I suspect that reason
is the war with AVALON.

Of course, Mozilla people can correct me if wrong, they could explain why
they are ready to do this radical step without hear that the whole of
community is saying them.

I heard that this motion of mathematics to HTML is because mathematicians
hate XHTML and do not use MathML because –they said- blocked in a XHTML
framework. Some time ago I asked to a WhatWG guy for *real* data on this
and he said me:

<blockquote>
I have been told by some that this is because they can't use it in
text/html. I have been told by others that this is not the case. Without a
study showing what the real reason is, we are just speculating.
</blockquote>

Therefore, if your rationale for the change from XML to HTML is based in
speculation, if you are ready to break compatibility with 100% of software
and legacy docs, and if you do not heard technical requirements that
MathML folks are soliciting from you, the only rationale may be the
Internet war with Microsoft XML.

What future for MathML from W3C now? I am ready to read proposals.

Received on Thursday, 9 November 2006 09:09:46 UTC