- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:19:43 +0100
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
> MathML 1 and 2 - there is a version 3 As you note the Math WG is currently in cold storage however you could flag this on the www-math list. Speaking personally I would say mathml 1 , 1.1 and 2 (1st edition) could definitely be obsoleted, these were specified before the bulk of math characters were added to Unicode so used the placeholder code points in the private use area which were used for the stix submission. MathML 2.0 2nd edition incorporated the (then) newly added math code points and so matches mathml3 (and html5) in its character definitions. MathML 3.0 2nd edition was a compatible extension of MathML 3 1st edition (mostly just authorising the use in HTML as opposed to XML, and so adjusting the wording to be less XML-centric) so I don't think anything would be lost if the first edition was marked obsolete in favour of the second edition. That would leave MathML 2.0 2nd edition and MathML 3.0 2nd edition. In these versions MathML 2 is with only very minor exceptions a compatible subset of MathML 3, and so it possibly makes sense to leave that so any implementations that don't implement the additional features can claim they support MathML 2 rather than support some MathML 3 subset, but they could probably claim that anyway. I'm not clear to be honest what are the implications of marking a spec obsolete, is it just that it gets a banner added in place saying that it is obsolete (and pointing at the newer spec) or is there more to it? Note that MathML 2 has (always had) a forward reference to the latest MathML Recommendation so (unlike some other REC that have later versions) MathML 2 https://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-MathML2-20031021/ already has a link to "Latest MathML Recommendation" in the front matter which links (currently) to MathML 3 2nd edition. so anyone who is reading that spec should know it has been superseded whether or not it is marked obsolete. David (co-editor of the specs, even if there isn't currently a WG)
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 22:20:22 UTC