Le 22 déc. 07 à 15:31, Henri Sivonen a écrit : >> Applications emitting MathML should, when outputting the encoding >> attribute of the annotation or annotation-xml children of the >> semantics element, either: >> 1- use one of the names listed in this spec, if applicable >> 2- use a mime-type if one exists for the data >> 3- use a namespace URI if this URI is the namespace URI of the >> single root child of an annotation-xml that is being output >> 4- use an self-decided character string >> >> Note that the encoding attribute value of case 4 does not impact >> the XML parsing architecture which still needs appropriate xmlns >> declarations. > > I think that formulation is still problematic. > > For annotation-xml, it doesn't explain what value the encoding > attribute provides over the namespace of the child element. It cannot because 1 and 2 are still applicable. I wonder if 4 and 3 shouldn't be swapped. > Wouldn't it be better to suggest that legacy generators continue to > be allowed to use an encoding attribute on annotation-xml but it > must be ignored by consuming apps and the namespace of the child > must be used for dispatching instead (and suggest that new > generators omit the attribute)? It is just a commodity feature. You certainly don't want to ignore an encoding attribute if with 1 and 2. Or? > For annotation, point 3 is not applicable. With point 2, it should > probably be clarified whether a MIME type is appropriate for > fragments. > It seems to me, that e.g. the value TeX is not used for labeling a > full TeX program but a fragment of TeX source that one would use > inside a larger TeX program. If one uses similar fragments of > another language and the other language has a MIME type for full > files, should the MIME type or a self-decided string per point 4 be > used for fragments? This is a never ending story and I do not think it can be decided before MathML3 should come out. For this reason clipboard formats are, in Macs and Windows, in several technologies, not the same as mime-types (only Java brings them together). But, of course, they are different between these two platforms. Nonetheless, Mime-types are the only standardized encoding names hence are the only way towards interoperability. Moreover, mime-types are somewhat refinable with the parameters. Maybe we need more examples? paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:46:44 UTC