- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:33:23 -0500
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: www-math@w3.org, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
FYI, the approach used in the SVG spec looks like it could work for MathML. http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/conform.html#ConformingSVGDocuments On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 21:46 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 22:57 +0100, David Carlisle wrote: > > > 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. > > OK; I'll stay tuned. Thanks. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:33:37 UTC