From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:05:01 +0100

Message-ID: <3E5A88FD.6000604@activemath.org>

To: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>

CC: www-math@w3.org

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:05:01 +0100

Message-ID: <3E5A88FD.6000604@activemath.org>

To: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>

CC: www-math@w3.org

Robert Miner wrote: >>Although it looks interesting for an amount of task... do I understand that >>you're opening the door to yet another system with possibly, say, yet another >>interpretation of the arccos ? >> >> > >Yes. But as this is true for any new piece of software that has an >interpretation for functions like arccos, I'm not sure what the >implication is? That no new mathematical software should be written? > > What it means is that when one starts to write a software which is expected to be connected to the rest of the world, one has to ask how good this connection is to happen. In the case of MathML-content, I thought the lack of specification of, at least to my knowledge, the inverse-trigonometric functions have made Mathematica and Maple MathML-content behave inconsistently. Based on this experience (which I'd like to see one day written somewhere under an "interoperability" heading in the w3c.org/math pages), a new software being written should then declare something like: the inversed trigonometric functions shall behave the same as Maple, Mathematica (or OpenMath) ones. Hence my statement which was, sorry for that, sort of sketchy. I would surely not prevent new software to be written! PaulReceived on Monday, 24 February 2003 16:05:44 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:33 UTC
*