[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: MathML proposal for 1.3 -- early prototype questions
Eliot's been working on a proposal for a MathML domain in DITA 1.3, currently approved at stage 3, waiting for full specification write-up. Approved stage 2 proposal is here: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47115/proposal-13111-mathml.html We're working on an early version of this in IBM, hoping to stay in line with everything that will be coming in DITA 1.3. We've come up with a few issues that may impact this proposal, and I was hoping to get some feedback / guidance. 1. The proposal was approved at stage 2 with a specialization called <mathml_container>. That provides a single container for math content. Our internal stakeholders need to differentiate between math markup that should be treated as a block (for presentation / segmentation) and markup that should be treated as inline. Do others have this need? Is there a general feeling of which would be better - use 2 elements, use 3 (general and specialize for block/inline), or just use some metadata on the container to designate block vs inline? 2. Our users would also like to store their MathML externally for some uses. In that case we'd like something similar to the <coderef> element, but keeping the semantic of foreign MathML. Would it make sense to have a content model inside the MathML container that allows an option - either a reference, or literal markup? For example, something like <mathml_container><mathml_ref href="externalMath.xml" format="mathml"/> </mathml_container> Thanks - Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]