Re: [om] MathML draft Notes available for review

• From: Bill Naylor <Bill.Naylor@mcs.vuw.ac.nz>
• Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:51:22 +1200 (NZST)
• To: www-math@w3.org
• cc: om@openmath.org
• Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.51.0307251339030.4443@debretts.mcs.vuw.ac.nz>

>
> http://www.w3.org/Math/Documents/Notes.
>

after a quick reading of the document:

"Structured types in MathML 2.0"

I have a comment on section 4.1

'Representing and Associating Types in OpenMath'

It seems to me that the paragraph starting

"With the representation ..., content MathML is as expressive as OpenMath
for types."

gives the message that MathML is as good, if not better than OpenMath,
which of course is not the point as they are not supposed to be in
competition! Of course the definitionURL attribute should be pointing
somewhere meaningful, and this, I understand, is a major reason for
OpenMath (at least as far as MathML is concerned); to give target points
for this attribute's values. I would suggest maybe a rewording of this
paragraph which cast OpenMath in more of a supportive role to MathML.

cheers,

Bill

Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 22:00:36 UTC