Open mgrub opened 3 months ago
This may be a schema implementation detail?
I took a look at the .rnc
files maintained by the W3C validator project, where semantics
is included separately for presentation use, and for content use, through mathml3-common.rnc and mathml3-strict-content.rnc respectively.
The relevant snippet for this issue, is the use of the semantics-contexp
rule in ContExp
, which makes it available in apply
as long as one is validating against the "strict" rnc. (link)
But interestingly, the other Content-defining schema, mathml3-content.rnc has no mention of semantics
itself. Just a local extension for semantics-ci
.
I suspect @davidcarlisle has the answers here.
The same issue appears to be the case with the draft mathml4 schema at
https://github.com/w3c/mathml-schema
The supplied example is valid to the normative RelaxNG schema but fails validation to the XSD which is clearly a bug and the transformation from RelaxNG to W3C XSD schemas has failed. I'm travelling today but will check later exactly where this has failed, thanks for the report.
Dear @dginev and @davidcarlisle ,
thank you very much for the immediate response, very detailed feedback and confirmation of unwanted behaviour! And also thank you for the reminder that only the relaxNG-schema is normative - I will change my validation to be based on that.
Best regards Maximilian
Dear maintainers,
thank you very much for providing MathML and taking care of it!
I want to semantically annotate operators in a formula, which seems to be a perfect use-case for the
<semantics>
-element. A minimal working example (MWE) for my application is very similiar to the last example of subsection 4.2.1.3:mathml_mwe.xml
:However, if I validate either the MWE or the mentioned example in the documentation against the XSD, both result in (something like) this:
Similiar errors arise, if only the
<csymbol>
-element or the<ci>
-element is semantically annotated. It seems, like the schema does not allow a<semantics>
-child inside an<apply>
-element. My questions are therefore: Is this behaviour intended? Am I using the<semantics>
-element in a wrong way? Might this be a problem with my validation script? Or does the schema need an adjustment?Best regards Maximilian
I am validating using Python and xmlschema as follows:
mathml_validate.py
: