This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 23739 - XHTML5: Consider adding ”-//W3C//ENTITIES HTML MathML Set//EN//XML” to list of supported public identifiers
Summary: XHTML5: Consider adding ”-//W3C//ENTITIES HTML MathML Set//EN//XML” to list o...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: This bug has no owner yet - up for the taking
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-11-06 09:47 UTC by Leif Halvard Silli
Modified: 2015-06-17 05:37 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Leif Halvard Silli 2013-11-06 09:47:04 UTC 
Proposal: Add this public identifier to the list of public identifiers for which Web browsers with XHTML support are expected to support named entities:

   "-//W3C//ENTITIES HTML MathML Set//EN//XML"

There is already an extension spec (WD) that do add this public identifier: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-pubid/.

The purpose of the extension spec is to get Web browsers (Web browsers with XHTML support) to implement it (on the XML tool chain side of it, there should already support). So motivation for asking that it gets listed in HTML 5.1 Nightly is so that XHTML Web browser vendors will pick it up - I am not sure they pay attention to extension WDs. 

Motivation for why this identifier should be supported, is described in the WD.
Comment 1 Michael[tm] Smith 2015-06-17 05:37:24 UTC 
(In reply to Leif Halvard Silli from comment #0)
> There is already an extension spec (WD) that do add this public identifier:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-pubid/.

That extension spec has been moved to Note and includes this disclaimer:
"Beware. This specification is no longer in active maintenance and the HTML Working Group does not intend to maintain it further."

So we don't seem to have support for moving forward on this.