From: Frank Yung-Fong Tang <franktang@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:24:57 -0500

Message-ID: <2e4dfd6905030906241ece35dd@mail.gmail.com>

To: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>

Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org, www-math@w3.org

Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:24:57 -0500

Message-ID: <2e4dfd6905030906241ece35dd@mail.gmail.com>

To: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>

Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org, www-math@w3.org

First of all, please do not bring in OpenMath into the discussion. I never think it is a good idea to mix OpenMath with XQueryX. And brnig OpenMath in will confuse the discussion. Second of all, I am asking have any one research about this idea (a fact), I am not asking about 'is this a good idea'. (an opinion) Third, the question is when we express XQuery syntax and sematic into a XML form, as what it should be done in XQueryX, can it be serialized to a set of mark up that reuse some of the MathML content markup. In other word, instead of reinvent many tags in XQueryX, can some of the tags reuse the content markup tags spec out in MathML Content Markup. This does NOT mean someone XQueryX need to fully implement MathML Content Markup because only a subset of MathML Content Markup will be used to express XQueryX. Also, to express XQueryＸ you also need to introduce some other tags because MathML content markup may not include some of the structure thing that XQuery need. Just like XQueryX will use XML syntax to store XQuery expression, XQueryX may be able to use 'some' MathML content markup to store 'some major part' of the XQuery expression. (notice I said 'Some', not 'all') On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:50:38 +0100, Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org> wrote: > XQuery is, I suppose, fully implementable. > I don't think a math-evaluator that would do all is fully implementable. > > And it was never the intent of MathML-content or OpenMath to produce > something with an implementation for evaluation! > There's much more that can be done with mathematical objects encoded in > MathML-content! Agree. That is exactly why I feel interest about this topic. If MathML content model can only encode subset of mathematical information than what XQuery can do , then it won't be interesting. If MathML Content model can only encode 'exactly the same amount of mathmatical information' that XQuery can do, then I won't feel interest NEITHER. Reuse some general mechanism in a special context does not mean your implementation have to fully implement the general mecanism. For example, XML is a general mechanism, and MathML use XML syntax to store math information, but a math processor which know MathML are not require to fully implement ANY XML language. > > XQuery's evaluations are specified, I think, so there's no such thing > as undecidability there, I believe. > > paul > > Le 9 mars 05, à 01:01, Frank Yung-Fong Tang a écrit : > > > If such danger exist, then why W3C ever release MathML? > > If MathML content will easily become unparseable for XQuery > > interpreter , then in what sense it could be parseable for other > > application? > > If MathML content will easily become inefficiently executable for > > XQuery interpreter , then in what sense it could be efficiently > > executable for other applications? > > > > I am not saying that the issue you concern about is not there. But if > > they are valid concern for XQuery, then it probably will be valid > > concern for any other single thing ... > > -- Frank Yung-Fong Tang 譚永鋒 Šýšţém ÅrçĥîţéçţReceived on Wednesday, 9 March 2005 14:25:29 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:23 UTC
*