- From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:10:37 -0800 (PST)
- To: <www-math@w3.org>
- Cc: <davidc@nag.co.uk>
David Carlisle said: > > The validator is doing nothing wrong. As I said in the message to which > you replied, we should perhaps look to change the DTD for mathml3, but > that's for a future time, not now. > > David Ok, and is not confusing that when a novice send you a mathml fragment, you would say "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." Whereas the MathML validator A will say it "The input is valid MathML" and the B will say it "This Page Is Valid MathML 2.0!". Then the guy got confused and read the MathML specification and there explicitely it is said that their code is _prohibited_. I am not interested in technical details or if the validators are strictly following the XML spec or are not. I am noticing that this may be cause of problems, is not?
Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 15:11:45 UTC