W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > April 2002

Re: MathML- Content markup, Modules, eXtensibility, and more thoughts.

From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:34:41 +0200
Cc: www-math@w3.org
To: jimbofc@yahoo.com
Message-Id: <4ED1F01C-5253-11D6-AF3A-0003934D43BA@activemath.org>
Actually, I have the impression that OMDoc[1] might respond to most of 
the requests...

Among others, it provides structuring at a higher level than at the 
formula level, it provides, with this, an architecture to declare new 
symbols and to define them, and it supports stylesheet-enrichments for 
new symbols.

At least for these aspects, I think that it is a good choice which 
follows the principle of "pure content" encoding as we are doing it 
within the ActiveMath[2] learning environment.


[1] http://www.mathweb.org/omdoc
[2] http://www.activemath.org/

On Mercredi, avril 17, 2002, at 09:36 , David Carlisle wrote:
>> One thing I don't like about MathML-Content (MMLC) is that there are a 
>> great
>> many of built-in operators and constants.
> There are advantages and disadvantages in having built in names.
> If you prefer a style without then openmath is your friend:
> (www.openmath.org) Your "modules" idea corresponds closely to openmath 
> content dictionaries.
> (Many of us work on both openmath and mathml, the two languages are 
> rather well connected these days)
> David
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 18:34:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:32 UTC