From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>

Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:13:42 -0400

To: Mathematics <maths@mathsonly.com>

Cc: www-math@w3.org

Message-ID: <20051006201342.GA28824@stratumtek.ca>

Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:13:42 -0400

To: Mathematics <maths@mathsonly.com>

Cc: www-math@w3.org

Message-ID: <20051006201342.GA28824@stratumtek.ca>

For the record: 1. The decision to allow presentation inside of <ci>...</ci> was deliberate. The view was that a "symbol" could have a very complicated appearance and still be treated as a single symbol for the purposes of content mathml. 2. For elipses in sums and sequences I have taken a more formal approach than has been suggested so far. I defined a function - roughly special_seq( base, operand , before_index_low, before_index_high, elipse_token , after_index_low, after_index_high ) so that special_seq( a , "+" , 1 , 3 , "..." , n-1 , n ) can be mapped to the presentation a_1 + a_2 + a_3 + ... + a_{n-1} + a_n and to the computational form Sum( a_i , i=1..n ); There is no ambiguity (at least no more than usual) for either the computation or presentation. Of course a transform is required. Stan Devitt in response to: > <ci><msub><ci>a</ci><ci>i</ci></msub></ci> (*) > and > > > >aside of the encoding problem of a_i you have such problems > >as encoding the ellipsis a_1, ..., a_k, ... > Look forward to your opinions, > Charles Lyons.Received on Thursday, 6 October 2005 20:15:59 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:58 GMT
*