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>

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. -- BillReceived on Monday, 11 November 2002 13:35:36 UTC

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