- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 00:33:56 +0100
- To: Jim Michaels <jmichae3@yahoo.com>
- CC: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>
On 01/10/2012 23:52, Jim Michaels wrote: > http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/ > > 5.2.1 The |semantics| element > <http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/chapter5.html#mixing.elements.semantics> > > 5.2.2 The |annotation| element > <http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/chapter5.html#mixing.elements.annotation> > > 5.2.3 The |annotation-xml| element > <http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/chapter5.html#mixing.elements.annotation.xml> > > not only is the TOC missing visible <> or </>, so is the document. > so there are 3, not just 1. this makes it hard for the reader to > dermine whether or not the elements are void elements or not. please > fix. thanks. Thanks for your comments. Note that "void element" is HTML5 terminology that doesn't really have a direct analogue in XML. Any element may use both <foo/> or <foo></foo> syntax so the use of /> in some section headings is only a mild hint not anything that has any real information content. In the particular case of annotation and annotation-xml they are quite likely to be used in both forms as they may either have content or reference external content via an attribute. <annotation>zzzz</annotation> <annotation src="example.com"/> <annotation src="example.com"></annotation> are all valid. Most element references in the document just use the element name rather than verbatim tag markup, as grammatically that is more natural. The name of the element is "semantics" not "<semantics>". That said, most section headings that mention elements do use the start tag form, to highlight the element definitions, so I have changed these three to match in the editors draft for consistency. Please see http://www.w3.org/Math/draft-spec/appendixf.html#d7e32960 Thanks again for your comments, David
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 23:34:25 UTC