# Bugs in Chapter 5

From: Bill Naylor <bill@scl.csd.uwo.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:50:13 -0400 (EDT)

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205311500230.1401-100000@iridium.scl.csd.uwo.ca>


Hi,

we have been looking through chapter 5 of the MathML Specification and
have come up with some bug reports, typos, general comments:

1) In section 5.2.1, ascending factorial notation example. It is stated:

"This content expression would render using the given notation as:
\frac{1^{\bar{n}}}{1^{\frac{}{n-1}}}"

this should be:

"This content expression would render using the given notation as:
n \equiv \frac{1^{\bar{n}}}{1^{\frac{}{n-1}}}"

2) section 5.2.2 paragraph 1:

"Conversely, when mixed markup appears in a content expression, it should
be possible to simply and sensibly assign a semantic interpretation to the
expression as whole."

should be:

"Conversely, when mixed markup appears in a content expression, it should
be possible to simply and sensibly assign a semantic interpretation to the
expression as a whole."

3) section 5.3.2 paragraph 1:

"...identification of a sub-expression in one branch of semantics element
gives no..."

should be:

"...identification of a sub-expression in one branch of a semantics
element gives no..."

4) section 5.3.4 2nd to last paragraph:

"...which in this case use XPointer [XPointer] to refer to an ids within
the current document."

should be:

"...which in this case use XPointer [XPointer] to refer to ids within
the current document."

5) In section 5.4.3 we are unhappy with the first example. As it stands,
the 'clearly written' example will be transformed to markup which is not
valid relative to the MathML dtd. Though apparently valid according to the
discussion in section 5.2.4. (!?) There are two places in the replacement
text where '<mi>X</mi>' occurs:

<semantics>
<apply> <factorial/> <mi>X</mi> <!-- HERE --> </apply>
<annotation-xml encoding="MathML-Presentation">
<msup>
<mn>1</mn>
<mover accent="true">
<mi>X</mi> <!-- AND HERE -->
<mo>&OverBar;</mo>
</mover>
</msup>
</annotation-xml>
</semantics>

shouldn't the first occurrence be a X instead? whilst the second occurence
must imply that some separate content->presentation stylesheet processing
is present.