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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML

[ 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>?


(em "important")

should be encoded as


As for


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.

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


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

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