Roger, Thanks for the link on <mtr label="mylabel">, > It appeared that attributes (like those in <mfenced>) aren't unanimous > either.
yes mfenced also "suffers" from requiring attributes, but probably one is more likely to need markup in an equation label than in a stretchy operator. It's not so uncommon to want superscript * or daggers etc to highlight special versions of formulae, and mfenced is explictly a shorthand form so you can always use the mwrow/mo form if you need an operator that is "decorated" in some way. That would not be the case here if mlabeledtr were deprecated and an attribute form was the only version. (Actually it would if the attribute could then be css-styled using css generated content. Allowing css (or other mechanism) auto numbering is I think a highly requested feature for mathml3. > (not on www-math, though. Maybe I should forward it there?) Yes please do. When we are doing a pass for errata or pulling in feature requests for a new version we can do a more or less exhaustive check of the official comment list but (even with google's help) doing an exhaustive check of the entire web's a bit hard:-) The charter for the current working group http://www.w3.org/Math/Documents/Charter2006.html has as one of its headline work items Extension of MathML with enhanced support for equation labeling, including automatic numbering, general label placement and style, and resolution of references. so getting that specified out in a way that ensures that implementations can implement it sounds like a good idea, and the timiming is good now to get new features in this area if that is needed. If WhatWG members are interested in mathml most of them are w3c members and could join the WG of course (currently only Opera is represented out of the main browser vendors) But WG membership isn't really needed we can do the technical discussion on the public www-math list if that is appropriate. > I am actually a fan of entities because they improve readability a fair > bit. Well as you know I've invested a frightening number of houres maintaining that entity set (and the draft iso set at www.w3.org/2003/entities, which is the same thing, really) so I'm also think they are valuable, although it's a kind of love-hate relationship most of the time:-) > I hope Ian won't give up thinking on this issue so quickly... > especially in the context of MathML where strange characters are quite > common. Yes I think the ideal situation is that they all be allowed. My comment was that subsetting them is likely to be more confusing than helpful. > As to my suggestion that "if [a document] is strict then maybe entities > could be required to have a semi-colon -- which will then avoid the > ambiguities", to which Ian responded that, "That would break back-compat." Requiring a ; would seem reasonable to me (ie make the lack of a ; make the & into an implict & rather than be an error as in xml). That does have a theoretical backward compatibility problem in that → would be an arrow instead of &rightarrow; but I would have thought that the occurrences of any such construction outside of test suites was rather rare. David _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
