From: Michael McCarthy <Michael.McCarthy@solcorp.com>

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:06:10 -0400 (EDT)

Message-ID: <8350FB93E0142041A38F028F974156A217DC23@rotexchange.rotterdam.solcorp.com>

To: "'www-math@w3.org'" <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:06:10 -0400 (EDT)

Message-ID: <8350FB93E0142041A38F028F974156A217DC23@rotexchange.rotterdam.solcorp.com>

To: "'www-math@w3.org'" <www-math@w3.org>

Hi, I've checked the errata document, and couldn't find anything on this subject, so I thought I would report it. There seems to be an inconsistency in the MathML spec regarding the signature of the <root> content element. This is what the validation grammar has to say about it: --- Snip --- | (root degree? _mmlarg) ---- Snip ---- This is what chapter 4.4.5.7 Degree (degree) has to say about it: ---- Snip ---- <apply> <root/> <degree><ci type='integer'> n </ci></degree> <ci> a </ci> </apply> ---- Snip ---- The validation grammar and the description coincide. However, appendix C (which is the most formal definition of the content elements) says: ---- Snip ---- This is the binary operator used to construct the nth root of an expression. The first argument "a" is the expression and the second object "n" denotes the root, as in ( a ) ^ (1/n) Signature ( anything , anything) -> root Example nth root of a <apply><root/> <ci> a </ci> <ci> n </ci> </apply> ---- Snip ---- Are chapter 4 and the validation grammar correct, or is appendix C correct? (Or was the intention to make the use of the degree element optional?) Thanks for clearing this up, Michael McCarthy.Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2002 15:13:17 UTC

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