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

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. -- AndreasReceived 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
*