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: <7.0.1.0.2.20060522112019.02ba51b0@CraneSoftwrights.com>
  • References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060522112019.02ba51b0@CraneSoftwrights.com>


The SXML version of next XML fragment

<em>important</em>

is

(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)

<root>5</root>

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)

<apply><root/>5</apply>

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

<apply><em/>important</apply>

rather than traditional

<em>important</em>?

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


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)







 

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

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