[Trac] [OpenMath] #11: Mixed content for textual bits in CD descriptions

[OpenMath]

#11: Mixed content for textual bits in CD descriptions
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
     Reporter:  polx        |          Owner:  kohlhase  
         Type:  proposal    |         Status:  assigned  
     Priority:  blocker     |      Milestone:  CD3 Draft1
    Component:  CD3 Format  |        Version:            
   Resolution:              |       Keywords:            
Include_gantt:  0           |   Dependencies:            
   Due_assign:  YYYY/MM/DD  |      Due_close:  YYYY/MM/DD
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Comment (by kohlhase):

 Replying to [comment:12 david]:
 > Replying to [comment:11 kohlhase]:
 >
 > I'm not sure that OM and MML should be inlined into he xhtml (not
 necessarily against it) traditionally openmath has been restricted to
 specific CD fields that were just openmath (FMP and friends) with
 descriptive text being in fields that did not have any OM (Description and
 friends).
 We talked about this before and it seemed that there were voices (Paul's,
 mine,...) that wanted to have some kind of Math in descriptive fields so
 that we can really say what we mean mathematically. The view is that
 descriptive fields should be rigorous math like in textbooks.

 There were voices (your's,...) that were worried about universally being
 able to display CD material in e.g. tooltips,...

 I thought that your suggestion to have two kinds of descriptive fields
  * one short one for tooltips without embedded math
  * one longer one for rigorous math vernacular with embedded mobj
 (the first one being mandatory, the second one being optional) was a very
 sensible compromise in this situation.

 > We could allow a richer text markup (eg xhtml) without necessarily
 allowing OM.
 agreed, these are independent.
 > CDUses and general consistency checking gets harder if we allow
 unconstrained use of OM in text fields. (Although some things might be
 easier to express...)
 I am not very worried about this, XPath and XSLT are really quite powerful
 :-)
 >
 > As for the content model I'd probably use less than all the models you
 listed in comment #8, no object for a start. Maybe just start small, I'd
 probably allow p (although it's not inline) because otherwise it's hard to
 make long comments without falling back on blank line syntaxes, and then
 perhaps just b i br lists and a.
 I probably agree with dropping object, but I think that image should be in
 there. Of course you could use <mglyph> now, but I would consider that as
 cheating semantically.
 Another thing I realize, I think that we will need tables, and that
 somehow got dropped from my list above.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.mathweb.org/OM3/ticket/11#comment:13>
OpenMath <http://www.openmath.org>
The development of the OpenMath Standard and Content Dictionaries.