- From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:16:22 -0800 (PST)
- To: <www-math@w3.org>
David Carlisle said: > >> 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. > > yes as I said, in my corrected messgage, the dtd won't flag this as an > error by default so it is valid in the technical definition of valid as > defined by XML. That doesn't mean however that it isn't an error as > MathML. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML/appendixa.html > > says > > ... and partly due to the fact that for reasons of compatibility with > earlier releases, the DTD is intentionally forgiving in some places > and does not enforce constraints that are specified in the text of > this specification. > > A few paragraphs further down > http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML/appendixa.html#parsing.dtd.strict > it does explain how the DTD can be made to check some additional things, > including this. > > David I do not know that validator is really doing, i do not know if validate against a DTD or Schema, or some internal representation or what. The Additional DTD Checking defined in appendix generates an error in the tool. I am not interested in legacy issues. I simply pointed that certain MathML validator validates as correct input is not correct according to the today spec. I understand you, but only reason i said was that someone from _that_ CAS can take a look to their validator for checking this. Sorry, it was not information for you even if i send you a copy of message.
Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 13:16:54 UTC