- From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:09:34 -0800 (PST)
- To: <www-math@w3.org>
- Cc: <davidc@nag.co.uk>
David Carlisle said: > > I wrote >> <m:apply> <m:mo>≫</m:mo> >> is not valid, as can easiy be confirmed with a validating xml parser. > > which was, depending on how charitable you are feeling, either incorrect > or not as accurate as it could be... > > It's clearly not allowed by the prose description of apply, but the DTD > is rather more permissive by default (for compatibility with the mathml1 > dtd, the reasons for the original mathml dtd being permisive are not > really clear, but remember mathml was largely developed in at a time > while XML was being developed (I wasn't on the WG at that time) and they > probably wanted to keep the dtd fairly simple. > > Anyway in my defence, I usually use the DTD with > > <!DOCTYPE apply SYSTEM > "/cygwin/home/w3ccvs/WWW/Math/DTD/mathml2/mathml2.dtd" > [ > <!ENTITY % MathMLstrict "INCLUDE"> > ]> > <apply> > <mo/> > <ci/> > </apply> > > with MathMLstrict parsing enabled, an mo in an apply does generate a > validation error as you would expect. > > rxp -sxV mml.xml > Warning: Content model for apply does not allow element mo here > in unnamed entity at line 6 char 4 of file:///c:/tmp/mml.xml > > > Sorry about the misinformation earlier. > > > I think that we should probably make things default to the mathml strict > content models in mathml3, but that's a WG decision to be taken at some > future time. > > David Just by curiosity. There exists another online validator (from a famous CAS) that approves <math xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML'> <apply> <mo>≫</mo> <!-- put entity for the operator here --> <ci>x</ci> <cn>0</cn> </apply> </math> as valid MathML.
Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 11:13:08 UTC