- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 22:57:09 +0100
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
> I'm struggling to understand the role of DTDs in the new > MathML spec. sorry to make you struggle. Appendix A is currently unchanged from MathMl2 apart from the addition of a couple of editorial notes which I hoped would indicate that the current state is unstable In particular the second note floats the idea of making a relax schema normative (and by implication making the dtd not normative). The WG is still discussing the detailed specification of some of the new elements so we haven't generated a full dtd/schema yet. practically speaking I think the best course of action to get consistent DTD and schema is to author the schema in relax ng and derive dtd and xsd from that. there is then a question as to which of any of these should be normative, and to word the conformance section appropriately. (The fact that the schema is authored in relax doesn't necessarily mean the relax version should be normative, Although for a document type like MathML Relax NG is considerably more expressive than either DTD or XSD) This will no doubt be up for discussion at the upcoming face to face at the W3C plenary meeting. David ________________________________________________________________________ The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. ________________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2007 21:57:21 UTC