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

Re: Operator groups

From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 2002 13:35:31 -0500
To: W3C MathML Discussion <www-math@w3.org>
Message-ID: <i7n0ogx8cs.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

"Dransfield, Martin (ELSLON)" <Martin.Dransfield@eslo.co.uk> writes:

> I'm writing an XSLT stylesheet to transform equations from an older,
> SGML markup into presentation MathML.

The source is an author level markup?  Public or private?

Are you sure that you want your translation target to be presentation,
rather than content, MathML?

I say this because the content-to-presentation step is already
available and efforts might better be spent upgrading the source
markup as required in order to be able to reach content markup.

> I noticed that <mrow> elements should be used to group sub-expressions
> (3.3.1.3) and, specifically, that a nested <mrow> is not needed when
> all the operators are from the same group in the Operator Dictionary.

If I were writing XSLT for this I imagine that I would not want, for
example, with "mfrac" to examine the recursive contents of its two
subelements to make this determination.  Therefore, I would be
inclined to code "mrow" at the risk of redundance.  (In the Mozilla
MathML discussion it was pointed out that there is risk of a
performance hit with redundant mrows.)

But that's not what you asked, and offhand I don't know the answer to
what you asked.

> I would be very grateful if anybody can clarify this point, or refer
> me to a correctly grouped operator dictionary.

If you come across non-obvious distinctions in such groupings, I think
it would be helpful for us to hear about them here.

                                    -- Bill
Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 13:35:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:51 GMT