From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>

Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:40:01 +0200

Message-Id: <8f1157b0f597d0f89f615942b10e4792@activemath.org>

Cc: www-math@w3.org, maths@mathsonly.com

To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:40:01 +0200

Message-Id: <8f1157b0f597d0f89f615942b10e4792@activemath.org>

Cc: www-math@w3.org, maths@mathsonly.com

To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Le 6 oct. 05, à 15:43, David Carlisle a écrit : > bind the whole vector at once. The need to use a special purpose > stylesheet is less of an issue in openmath as openmath has no default > presentation form so you always need _some_ stylesheet. and we're working exactly such a stylesheet. >> True, the problem of the ellipsis did cause some problems for a short >> time. What we decided to do was use <csymbol>...</symbol> as our >> ellipsis, and to declare a definitionURL which points to an as-yet >> undecided address. We also did it but that's definitely not a long-term solution.Or? > on elipses I think it's best to have an encoding of >> sin[x] = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! + ... + x^n/n! > as sin[x] = sum{i=0}^{n} {(-1)^i x^{2i+1)/(2i+1)!} > and leave it to the presentation stylesheet to display using ... and > inline + rather than \sum symbol if that is the presentation choice. Actually you've provided a very good illustration of one of the heavier challenges of current renderers... and we need this, I believe, at least at some point. >> The engine has left the <csymbol>...</csymbol> alone, as it knows >> that the derivative of <csymbol>...</csymbol> is most likely still >> another <csymbol>...</csymbol> (it ignores the case where it *might* >> be 0). Charles, that's one of the best jokes I've ever heard!! I fear it's needed too often nowadays! paulReceived on Thursday, 6 October 2005 14:40:14 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:36 UTC
*