[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I like your thinking... :)
---
> It seems that we have a layered architecture emerging:
Where would OpenMath stand?
The core is based on a (small) set of objects independent of the language or
encoding scheme. However, every OpenMath processor is required to support
the XML grammar, so is it a "standalone language?"
OpenMath expressions are meaningless without the context provided by
externally linked "content dictionaries." As these dictionaries are
standardized, does this mean the OpenMath is a collection of "information
pools" rather than an individual language?
---
Jimmy Cerra
"I'm the W3C of my own fantasy-world!"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@allette.com.au]
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 3:20 AM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] New approach
>
> It seems that we have a layered architecture emerging:
>
> combined language or profile (document type), eg. XHTML+SVG+MathML
> standalone language, e.g.namespace such as XHTML, SVG, MathML
> information pool e.g. HTML modules, Ruby, xlink, CALS table
> information unit, e.g. a simple ruby or an extended ruby, a simple
xlink
> or an
> extended xlink, the xml-stylesheet PI
> information item, e.g. xhtml:rb, xlink:href,
>
> It seems that namespaces are being used for very coarse-grained
> element sets, not for fine-grained modules (which is the impression
> I get from the namespace spec, but that may be a phantom).
>
> The combined language or profile seems to be more what a MIME type should
> describe, or a RDDL document or an XAR archive.
>
> Ruby has had quite an ordeal figuring out whether it should have its own
> namespace. In the end, they decided against it, because then it
> is better for them to be part of HTML rather than separate. They are
> clearly a module in the sense that the XML Namespaces has, but given
> that they primarily need to fit conveniently into HTML, they chose not
> to have their own namespace.
>
> I would say Schematron pattern's often correspond to information pools,
> and Schematron rules often correspond to information units.
>
> Grammar-based schema languages provide content models
> to model information units. XML Schema's <include> supports pooling.
> <schema> supports standalone languages.Combined languages and
> profiles are weakly supported using schemaLocation and redefine.
>
>
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe
>
> P.S. Anyone who is going to XML Europe 2002, and is interested in
software
> supporting ad hoc modular construction of documents organized as
information
> pools (which may be a namespace), please come and see me in the incubator
> area at the Topologi desk.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@netfolder.com>
>
> I just looked at the new draft:
http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusMathMLplusSVG/
> and found the approach interesting. Notably, the concept that an SVG
document
> can be considered the host of XHTML and MathML fragments, idem for MathML
and
> idem for XHTML (As hosts). I played with these profiles and found quite
> interesting things. Did anybody played with these profiles?
|
