From: Luis Alvarez <alvarez@zib.de>

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:39:42 +0100 (MET)

To: Robert Miner <rminer@geomtech.com>

cc: www-math@w3.org

Message-ID: <Pine.GHP.4.05.9901131029250.28952-100000@patricia.zib.de>

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:39:42 +0100 (MET)

To: Robert Miner <rminer@geomtech.com>

cc: www-math@w3.org

Message-ID: <Pine.GHP.4.05.9901131029250.28952-100000@patricia.zib.de>

Hello Robert, Thanks for having tested my program and made the effort to comment on it. On the first point you arise, I have had some problems. > 1. You seem to be generating <relation> ... </relation> tags instead > of <reln> ... </reln>. For example, > > tay(x*sin(x),x,5); > > returns > > <math> > <relation><eq/> > <apply><plus/> > <ci>x</ci> > <cn type="integer">6</cn> > </apply> > <apply><plus/> > <apply><fn><ci>y</ci></fn> > <ci>x</ci> > </apply> > <ci>y</ci> > </apply> > </relation> > </math> > My program use to generate the <reln> tags, which seem to me the good solution. But for some reason one day, I was looking at the spec and in section 4.4.4 of the online spec the <relation> tag is used. I believe you are right, but I am a bit confused with the tag on the spec. So which one do you think I should really use? > > 3. The previous example also points out another problem, though in > this case it isn't clear to me if the culprit is your code, WebEQ, > or the MathML spec. I am inclined to blame the spec. > > The problem is that the <minus/> element indicated by the ***** > above is followed by a single child. WebEQ throws an error, based > on the fact that </minus> is listed in section 4.2.3 of the spec as > a binary operator. Oops. Where does that leave the unary minus > operator. As far as I can tell, it isn't there... > Concerning the <minus> element, me too I have some doubts. When I started the generator in september, there was an appendix F on the mathml spec, which has now disappeared. And on it was explained every operator with a lot of information concerning it. The <minus> operator was qualified as both binary and unary. I used that definition. When this appendix disappeared, I faced the problem that unary <minus> was no longer existant, so I just kept it for its usefulness. But maybe I should consider asking some MathML expert what the official answer is... Thanks a lot once again for your helpful comments, Luis Alvarez ________________________________________________________ Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum fur Informationstechnik Berlin (ZIB) Optimisation Division Tel: (+49 30) 84 18 53 34Received on Wednesday, 13 January 1999 04:36:03 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:28 UTC
*