[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Use of standardized prefixes when incorporating foreignvocabularies
Yes, validating XML editors should be pulling the values from the schema/dtd. Albeit, sometimes some piece of connector code between an XML editor and a MathML renderer (where the Math tools might not be reading the DTD/schema) might expect a particular prefix. If a particular MathML connector uses something like "m:" as the default prefix, which doesn't match the namespace prefix, it is the connector that should change when implementing the system, not the DTD or schema. From this vendor's perspective, it is not a requirement that DITA defines standardized prefixes in the specification. Best regards, Yas Etessam -----Original Message----- From: W. Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@innodata-isogen.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:43 AM To: Eric Sirois Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [dita] Use of standardized prefixes when incorporating foreignvocabularies Eric Sirois wrote: > as the prefix. We both use our favorite XML editor to write up the topics. > You try to process that topic within your publishing stream which use > your specialized version of MathML and the parser is throwing some > errors because it does not recognize the mml prefix. I'm confused by the "parser...does not recognize the MML prefix" because it's not a parser issue--that is, either the topic is valid with respect to its governing DTD or schema or it's not. When authoring a document it would not be possible to create one with the wrong prefix assuming the editor is syntax driven or I'm validating as a I go. Once I get to the point of processing, anything that is MathML-aware better by gosh be looking for the MathML namespace URI and not a particular prefix. If my processor is in fact expecting a particular prefix then my processor is broken, which is a "my processor is broken" issue, not a namespace prefix or DTD vs. schema problem. If somebody has the expectation that they can take two topics created using different local schemas (DTD or XSD doesn't matter) and blindly smash them together into the same document instance then they are simply not thinking clearly because it's never possible if you expect to use one or the other of the original document's DTDs to validate the result, as a general case (of course it might work in a particular case but that would just be coincidence). Cheers, E. -- W. Eliot Kimber Professional Services Innodata Isogen 9390 Research Blvd, #410 Austin, TX 78759 (214) 954-5198 ekimber@innodata-isogen.com www.innodata-isogen.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]