[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Conformance and MathML
I definitely confused myself. Here's what I discovered in the current draft documents. [Then I discovered that I misread your statement about ODF Formula documents having <math:math> roots. I thought you were talking about OpenFormula and I went down hill from there. The analysis is still valid and the conclusions reflect this realization.] A. ANALYSIS The latest draft for OpenFormula (ODF 1.2 part 2) only mentions MathML in non-normative ways concerning how OpenFormula is different. There is a citation of the MathML specification in the references, but there is no reference to the citation in any text. There is of course no mention of <math:math>. It took me a while to be reminded that OpenFormula is for an attribute value and doesn't have XML structure at all. In ODF 1.2 draft 7-10 I searched for all occurrences of "math:math" and "MathML" with not much found. <math:math> and <office:document> are explicitly allowed as child elements of <draw:object> when the <draw:object> element does not have external content. Alternatively, the <draw:object> may reference, via xlink:href, separate XML documents having <math:math> or <office:document> root elements. The separate XML document may be contained in a sub file in the same package as the XML document having the <draw:object> element. These separate files can also be free-standing files that are external to the file (and any package that contains it) that contains the <draw:object> element and referenced via an xlink:href attribute. Also, <math:math> and <office:document> elements are allowed as child/external elements of <db:component> elements in exactly the same way as for <draw:object>. Section 13.6 <math:math> says that the element may be used with <db:component> and <draw:object> and nothing else. I think this is an artifact of how the cross-referencing is done. (E.g., it is not the case that <math:math> has no attributes or content. It is the case that such things are not defined by the ODF specification, but by the MathML specification. And the reference to external XML documents that have those root elements is not to be found in the schema. MathML and <math:math> are not mentioned at all in the package draft 6. That's all there is about MathML and <math:math> (and embedded <office:document>) in the existing drafts (and in earlier standards). B. CONCLUSIONS 1. I think there is some way that these cases need to be reflected with more clarity in the Document Processing and Conformance sections. My initial thoughts are pretty half-baked, so I will wait before suggesting anything. 2. The ODF Formula document and ODF Formula Template document need to be defined in the specification. The only mention of the concept is in the non-Normative MIME type appendix. 3. One needs to decide what the game is about foreign attributes and elements under <math:math>. 4. [also about Conformance as long as I'm making a list] There needs to be some statement about processing of elements and attributes that are not foreign and their appearance is valid but not supported in a given Conformant Processor. Maybe this is a blanket case for implementation-defined with some recommended behavior. This probably needs to be incorporated in further pondering on (1). - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200810/msg00185.html Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 16:47 To: 'OpenDocument TC' Cc: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM; 'Patrick Durusau'; David A. Wheeler Subject: RE: [office] Some ballot request - ODF 1.2 part 1 conformance clause [ ... ] PS: I am going out on a limb about <math:math>. Are you saying that there is an ODF document that has <math:math> as its content.xml root element and it has no <office:document-content> (or <office:document>) element at all? So this would be completely outside of the <office:body> model? I think this needs to be reflected in Section 2 of ODF 1.2, even if it references part 2 for details. I had assumed that <math:math> would show up on other subfiles of a package and these would be relied on from the main document, not be a main document. I see I have more homework to do. I think it should be reflected in Section 2 of part 1 somehow, even if only to indicate that there is another kind of structure defined in part 2 (and maybe 3). -----Original Message----- From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200810/msg00182.html Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 09:06 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: 'OpenDocument TC' Subject: Re: [office] Some ballot request - ODF 1.2 part 1 conformance clause [ ... ] On 10/31/08 07:43, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [ ... ] > > [I don't understand the reference to <math:math> in this context.] ODF formula documents have plain MathML within their content.xml. [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]