Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML
- From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 06:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <22.214.171.124.2.20060522112019.02ba51b0@CraneSoftwrights.com>
- References: <126.96.36.199.2.20060522112019.02ba51b0@CraneSoftwrights.com>
The SXML version of next XML fragment
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
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?
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)