OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Subject: Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML
  • From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
  • Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 06:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
  • Importance: Normal
  • In-reply-to: <>
  • References: <>

The SXML version of next XML fragment



(em "important")

and this generates a mapping between both representations.

Now take the SEXPR (root 5)

Using above mapping, this would be translated to XML (ignoring tokenization)


This was the way taken by the w3c in the original HTML math draft.
However, the current MathML 2.0 specification uses (again ignoring
tokenization by brevity)


MathML authors claim several advantages using this last content model.
Then the (more or less exoteric) question is, would the SXML

(em "important")

be encoded as


rather than traditional


That is, are there advantages on copying the MathML 2.0 content model for
example in some future XHTML version?

Juan R.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS