Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hi David, David Carlisle wrote: > > It seems to me that two languages with no names in common are not > versions of each other but rather two different languages. That's a good point. I'm not convinced that this isn't really the case though, as far as processing software is concerned, for instance. One of the tools that I want to provide is a validator for my language. If the content model of an element changes between versions, then it seems to me that I have no way of telling if the document is invalid or not. Take the replacement of <reln> with <apply> in MathML 2.0. My imaginary MathML validator (that can validate against 1.0 and 2.0) is unable to detect if a document is 1.0 or 2.0 unless it includes elements that are new to 2.0. For instance, it doesn't know if it should reject <apply><eq /> and suggest using <reln><eq /> (<eq> was not listed as an operator in MathML 1.0 I believe), or not. Wouldn't it be useful to have the namespace on the <apply> element define what the correct content model is? I don't really see the problem in having: <http://www.w3.org/MathML/1.0#apply> and <http://www.w3.org/MathML/2.0#apply> Whether a specification allows the combination of elements from different version is up to that spec. > ... all existing XPath queries into MathML structure (for > example) will not apply to this namespace. This is a really compelling point, as my validation is currently based on XSLT. Certainly a template-based stylesheet that does formatting won't be too concerned about the version of the document it is applied to. To a computationally oriented stylesheet this will be important however. I'm going to have to think about this a bit more, obviously. Thanks, Warren -- Warren Hedley The Bioengineering Research Group The University of Auckland New Zealand -- Warren Hedley The Bioengineering Research Group The University of Auckland New Zealand
|
