W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > February 2005

Re: wording change suggestion MathML v2

From: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:34:41 +0000
To: "Andrew Cates" <Andrew.Cates@sos-uk.org.uk>
Cc: <www-math@w3.org>
Message-ID: <877jlfrtym.fsf@w3.org>

"Andrew Cates" <Andrew.Cates@sos-uk.org.uk> writes:

> I like Mathematical Markup Language (MathML) Version 2.0 (Second
> Edition)
>
> But the language in places seems unnecessarily obscure. For example, if
> I have correctly understood it, might I suggest that in
[...]

Hi Andrew, 

Thanks for your suggestion, and sorry for the late reply. 

The language can indeed be found confusing in some parts of the spec,
and if there ever was a next version of it, we would try and clarify
it as much as we could.

Until then we can only add errata to the current specification, and in
my humble opinion, this suggestion isn't worth having an erratum for,
since that portion of the spec doesn't really provide crucial
assertions. I think it's preferable have fewer erratas but which
address errors and uncertainties in the text's significant statements.

Cheers,

Max.
Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 15:34:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:57 GMT