Jesper hi
> I don't agree with your interpretation of the conformance clauses in
> ODF 1.2 and thereby not with your conclusion.
I wrote "one interpretation of this ..." rather than stating it as a
conclusion. I think, it is possible to reach different conclusions here
by reading different parts of the conformance clauses as they relate to
MathML.
However, I agree that for "subdocuments" the wording seems less
confusing - the clause has been written in an effort to include MathML,
but it misses all cases as you note.
> Only thing left is that an ODF document containing MathML will not be
> entitled to the categorisation of "a Conforming OpenDocument document"
> but only the (a bit less prestiguous) "a Conforming OpenDocument
> extended document". I personally consider this kind of weird,
+1
> and I would highly recommend ODF TC to include the MathML schema in
> ODF 1.2 to avoid this particular issue.
+1
- Alex.
