Your message dated Thu, 10 May 2012 15:58:07 +0200
with message-id
<CA+7wUswG76FXw8JAaH649OWak_VSAfM46Att76f1TmAA=na...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line
has caused the Debian Bug report #224677,
regarding docbook-mathml: Bug? Bad HTML output
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
224677: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=224677
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: docbook-mathml
Version: 1.0-2
Severity: normal
As prefaced in the Subject, I really don't know if you want to classify
this as a bug. It could be policy, philosophy, etc.
I've got some stuff I am working on, which is meant to be published as
a website, PDF and dead-trees (probably from PDF). Since it is a book,
using DocBook makes as much sense as anything. If it was never meant
to be a website, I think LaTeX might be a better choice. Yes, I know
there are things which generate HTML from LaTeX.
The only output format I have looked at so far is web (HTML). And this
is where the philosophy/policy comes in. Is it reasonable to expect
HTML output from anything containing MathML? It doesn't matter
whether I use sgml2x (docbook-2-html) to generate HTML, or xmlto;
if I have an equation in the page it doesn't display as expected
in either amaya or mozilla (both of which are capable of displaying
MathML stuff). (Simple equation 3/4 = 1/4 + 1/2 * 2/2)
If I edit the HTML with amaya to put in the equation I want instead
of what I get, and save the file, the only real difference is
namespace use. The file which amaya now properly displays, displays
exactly the same with mozilla as before. Digging into MathML on
Mozilla, it wants proper XHTML. In fact, it wants the strict xhtml
DTD as the DOCTYPE. Loading a file, it wants the "extension" to be
".xml", not ".html" or ".xhtml". I suppose via a web browser it
might accept .xhtml if the type was text/xml in the headers. I haven't
looked closely at that.
So, I think the XSL stylesheets (DSSSL ?) need a little tuning.
If I am using the combined DocBook-MathML DTD, the output format
(file extension) needs to be xml, even if I choose html. It needs
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
as the first 3 lines of the file, as far as I can tell. Or, that seems
to satisfy both mozilla and amaya. I have no idea if that will satisfy
IE. I have seen another approach, which pulls in a XSL stylesheet
to transform the document for the browser being used. I think it
was at W3C, I don't see where this stylesheet imposes the strict
XHTML DTD on things, but then I am a novice at XML.
For now, this seems to be about the same mess as XML catalogs,
which I guess you are still working on. :-) I guess it would be nice
if there was a single obvious solution which worked for everyone,
but I suspect there isn't. For now, I guess I can live with manually
editing the output of either xmlto or docbook-2-html. A more elegent
solution would be nice.
You probably want to adjust the severity from normal. I refuse to touch
that after too many arguments with maintainers. Sorry.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux newmain.materia 2.4.18 #1 SMP Tue Aug 6 17:10:01 MDT 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages docbook-mathml depends on:
ii docbook-xml 4.2-7 standard XML documentation system,
ii w3-dtd-mathml 2.0.0-1 Mathematical Markup Language V2.0
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
fixed 224677 docbook-mathml/1.0.0-3
thanks
OP did request to close this bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=224677#30
therefore closing
--- End Message ---
