Re: [webkit-dev] HTML5 & MathML3 entities

2010-07-10 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 10, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Sausset François wrote: > I just saw that when looking at the code by myself. > What do you exactly mean by a prefix tree? The data structure commonly called a "Trie" is a prefix tree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trie This data structure not only lets you tell if

Re: [webkit-dev] HTML5 & MathML3 entities

2010-07-10 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 10, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote: > > 10.07.2010, в 04:49, Maciej Stachowiak написал(а): > >> Go with the HTML5 / MathML 3 definitions for everything. Our XHTML >> implementation targets XHTML5, not XHTML 1.0. > > > I think that xml-entity-names and HTML5 made a poor ch

Re: [webkit-dev] HTML5 & MathML3 entities

2010-07-10 Thread Sausset François
I'm not sure to understand everything, but the given link doesn't deal with the case where an entity should be translated to 2 Unicode characters, instead of only one as it is the case with the current hash table system. Such 2 characters entities don't exist in the HTML 5 entity list, but some

Re: [webkit-dev] HTML5 & MathML3 entities

2010-07-10 Thread Adam Barth
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Sausset François wrote: > I just saw that when looking at the code by myself. > What do you exactly mean by a prefix tree? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trie > I also noticed that the entity parser does not take into account combined > Unicode characters (see §A.

Re: [webkit-dev] HTML5 & MathML3 entities

2010-07-10 Thread Sausset François
I just saw that when looking at the code by myself. What do you exactly mean by a prefix tree? I also noticed that the entity parser does not take into account combined Unicode characters (see §A.3 in: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-entity-names/). In addition, even without entities, combined character

Re: [webkit-dev] HTML5 & MathML3 entities

2010-07-10 Thread Adam Barth
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Jul 10, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Sausset François wrote: >> I'm currently working on the MathML3 implementation and I noticed that new >> XML entities have been defined by the W3C: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-entity-names/ >> >> They are sup

Re: [webkit-dev] HTML5 & MathML3 entities

2010-07-10 Thread Alexey Proskuryakov
10.07.2010, в 04:49, Maciej Stachowiak написал(а): > Go with the HTML5 / MathML 3 definitions for everything. Our XHTML > implementation targets XHTML5, not XHTML 1.0. I think that xml-entity-names and HTML5 made a poor choice changing the semantics of ⟩ and ⟨ (they used to be CJK punctuation

Re: [webkit-dev] HTML5 & MathML3 entities

2010-07-10 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 10, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Sausset François wrote: > I'm currently working on the MathML3 implementation and I noticed that new > XML entities have been defined by the W3C: > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-entity-names/ > > They are supposed to be used by both HTML 5 & MathML 3. > > I would like t

[webkit-dev] HTML5 & MathML3 entities

2010-07-10 Thread Sausset François
I'm currently working on the MathML3 implementation and I noticed that new XML entities have been defined by the W3C: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-entity-names/ They are supposed to be used by both HTML 5 & MathML 3. I would like to include them in WebCore/html/HTMLEntityNames.gperf. However there i

Re: [webkit-dev] Bugzilla Question - Master Bug vs Component?

2010-07-10 Thread Alex Milowski
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > > Out of curiosity, is there an estimate of when that might be?  There's > some interaction with the new HTML5 parser because it supports > MathML-in-HTML. > That's something we're trying to get a handle on right now. Sausset François is going

Re: [webkit-dev] Bugzilla Question - Master Bug vs Component?

2010-07-10 Thread Alex Milowski
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 2:19 AM, David Kilzer wrote: > > IMO, it should be closed once MathML is enabled in the WebKit nightly builds > and/or most ports. > I would think we'd close it when we've actually completely implemented MathML. Just enabling it seems like something we could do now but o