- From: Urs Holzer <urs@andonyar.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:41:05 +0200
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>
I wrote as answer to David: > Isn't this the same as claiming that there is no need for a namespace > mechanism for XML because elements would have unique names anyway? Please don't consider this answer as offensive. Perhaps I misformulated it a little. The substring "OM" in all the element names from the OpenMath XML encoding are there because at some point, it was not possible to just use an XML namespace. Let me show the parallels of the cdbase and the XML namespaces: In my opinion, the prefix of an element or attribute in XML is similar to the OpenMath cd. The local name in XML is similar to the symbol name in OpenMath. Finally, the URI of the namespace is similar to the cdbase in OpenMath. It is widely accepted that just chosing prefixes carefully in XML without using URIs to identify the namespaces is not enough in practice. I believe that the same is true in the case of OpenMath and therefore also Content MathML: Chosing the cd carefully is not enough in practice. Greetings Urs
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 15:41:38 UTC