W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > July 2003

Re: errata and comments, chapters 2 and 4

From: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:16:46 +0200
Message-ID: <3F02F75E.9090705@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
To: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>
CC: www-math@w3.org

Stan,

yes, thanks, this answers my question.

 -- Andreas

Stan Devitt wrote:

>
> Andreas,
>
> We owe you a response on the issue of specifying
> more than one type.
>
>> Is it possible to use both a "function" and a "real" type value
>> simultaneously to denote a real function?
>
>
> The answer is yes. There is nothing preventing you
> from specifying a type as type="real function", or for
> that matter  type="function(real)".  The attribute value
> is only restricted to be a string.
>
> This also touches on a point raised by Clare So regarding
> the trade-offs between an open list of types versus a close list
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2003May/0027.html
>
> Concensus on the committe  seems to be that
> the presence of a type, especially if an application
> does not recognize it allows the applicatioon to
> react appropriately and that the need for such
> extensions out weighs the need for a fixed list.
>
> As you are well aware, the whole issue of types is
> much more complicated, and we need to build on the
> work that is being done in this area.
> A note is being prepared that addresses the issue
> of how to associate general types with MathML objects.
> Once the spec revisions settle down we will get back
> to that.
>
> Once again, an awknowledgement of this response
> will help us to track closure of the issues.
>
> Stan Devitt
> Math Working Group
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 11:16:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:55 GMT