Re: MathML 3.0 far enough along for implementation?

Interesting and motivating,

however i would insist to ask on implementations of which part of  
MathML you intend to go. For "MathML presentation"I think the answer  
is yes, for MathML content, things are getting clearer.

For such things are schemas I'm afraid we're just a bit behind... but  
it may be a matter of a few weeks or less, RelaxNG being the priority  
thus far.

So, if you accept to make comments on the draft, I think it would be a  
fruitful thing to do for both MathML-3 (your comments, the  
consideration of another implementation) and your project (modernity,  
maturity, some more interoperability dimensions).

hope it helps


Le 22-janv.-09 à 21:45, Scott Hudson a écrit :
> I have a client that is in the midst of implementing a new content  
> model. They are currently including MathML 2.0, but I wonder if the  
> MathML 3.0 spec is far enough along and backward-compatible enough  
> to recommend implementing against this spec? The immediate  
> advantage, is that both schemas would be encoded in RelaxNG.

Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 08:35:03 UTC