[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hello Juan,
I'm a bit confused by your post. SXML is just yet another representation
of XML infoset. I think you can't derive new properties of the infoset
by switching from angle brackets to s-expressions.
On Mon, 22 May 2006 06:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
...
> Now take the SEXPR (root 5)
>
> Using above mapping, this would be translated to XML
Note that this would not be transated to XML at all. The correct sexp is
(root "5")
>
> 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>?
No. SXML
(em "important")
should be encoded as
<em>important</em>?
As for
<apply><root/>5</apply>,
it should be encoded in SXML as
(apply (root) "5").
>
> That is, are there advantages on copying the MathML 2.0 content model
> for example in some future XHTML version?
I'm bad in philosophy, skipping the question.
>
>
> Juan R.
>
> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
>
--
Oleg Parashchenko olpa@ http://xmlhack.ru/ XML news in Russian
http://uucode.com/blog/ Generative Programming, XML, TeX, Scheme
XSieve at XTech 2006: http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/schedule/detail/44
|
