RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Conformance and MathML

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

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