office-comment message

Subject: Conformance / validation / MathML redux (ODF 1.2 CD01)

From: "Alex Brown" <alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk>
To: <office-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:41:24 -0000

Dear all,

A follow up prompted by Rob's suggestion about using NVDL for MathML
validation.

I notice in the new conformance clause we now have this required
property of a conformant processor:

"It shall be a non validating XML processor with regard to the XML 1.0
specification".

How then is it currently envisaged that MathML 2.x shall be validated?

- Alex.

P.S. If this sentence remains, I think it should be clarified with a
note pointing out that it is okay to use a validating parser in a
non-validating mode.

Follow-Ups:
- ODF security hazard? (ODF all versions)
  - From: "Alex Brown" <alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk>

References:
- ODF 1.2 References
  - From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
- Re: [office-comment] ODF 1.2 References
  - From: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- <text:s> element (etc) needs to be removed (ODF 1.2)
  - From: "Alex Brown" <alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk>
- Re: [office-comment] <text:s> element (etc) needs to be removed (ODF1.2)
  - From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
- RE: [office-comment] <text:s> element (etc) needs to be removed (ODF 1.2)
  - From: "Alex Brown" <alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk>