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

Re: errata and comments, chapters 2 and 4

From: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:39:30 +0200
Message-ID: <3EF1D932.2090002@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
To: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>
CC: www-math@w3.org

Thank you, Stan!

Stan Devitt wrote:
> Andreas Strotmann wrote:
>> I admit, however, that the easy way out that I suggested (i.e. 
>> deprecation) is perhaps a bit too radical for a second edition, 
>> besides having the disadvantage of breaking old code and examples. An 
>> alternative solution could take the form of specifying an algorithm 
>> that is guaranteed to determine, from context, whether an interval 
>> element is a qualifier or a constructor. This algorithm would probably 
>> require some reasonable restrictions on the use of interval as a 
>> qualifier; here is a sample restriction that would make such a 
>> decision algorithm easy to specify:
> 
Here's a slightly simpler solution that might be more palatable.

a) acknowledge that there is an ambiguity, and explain it to the readers 
of the recommendation.

b) recall the ordering rule -- head first, then qualifiers, then regular 
arguments.

c) specify the following disambiguation rule: if an interval qualifier 
directly precedes a regular argument, it must either be wrapped in a 
domainofapplication or split into lowlimit and uplimit.

> Perhaps the problem is best captured by the example
> 
> <apply><plus/>
> <interval><ci>0</ci><ci>1</ci></interval>
> <interval><ci>1</ci><ci>2</ci></interval>
> </apply>

A beautiful example -- I love it!  If MathML can produce beautiful puns 
like this, I'm tempted to retract my suggestions, because this is such a 
nice piece of evidence for my theory that Content Markup and the 
linguistics of natural language are deeply related.  ;-)

> With plus allowed to have a domainofapp, (as happens with a  uniform 
> treatment of n-ary perators ... )
> this becomes ambiguous, and I can imagine wanting to add together 
> intervals.  The author
> could still disambiguate this by specifying a definitionURL for plus, - 
> forcing their own
> specific interpretation on  how the interval qualifier is handled, but 
> perhaps something more is needed.

If there was a uniform treatment of n-ary operators, a definitionURL 
would not be able to turn it off explicitly, would it, and therefore 
would not be able to force one particular interpetation.
> 
> We'll get back to you on this.

Thanks.

  -- Andreas
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2003 11:39:44 GMT

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