W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > April 2000

Re: recap: MathML2 2nd WD (long)

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 18:56:39 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200004041756.SAA21880@nag.co.uk>
To: strotman@nu.cs.fsu.edu
CC: www-math@w3.org


> I think I argued earlier that it would be a very good idea to allow at
> least the bvars (with the general notion of variables bound by the
> operator).  With the general meaning of conditions as representing a type
> for the bvars, I'd also prefer to have these available for user-defined
> operators or other operators or quantifiers not available in MathML.

We discussed this at our phone conference today.
On the face of it, this seems a reasonable extension.
We plan to investigate this further during this `last call' period
(We clearly would need to try to understand any implications for the
rest of the spec, and for existing systems)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention (again)

Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2000 13:57:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:29 UTC