• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML
• From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>
• Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 06:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <7.0.1.0.2.20060522112019.02ba51b0@C...>
• References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060522112019.02ba51b0@C...>

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)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML
    • From: "Oleg A. Paraschenko" <olpa@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Schematron-love-in] ISO Schematron Update (RETRY)
• Next by Date: RE: Re: [Schematron-love-in] ISO Schematron Update (RETRY)
• Previous by thread: Re: [Schematron-love-in] ISO Schematron Update (RETRY)
• Next by thread: Re: Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread