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

Re: Subscripts in Content MathML

From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 21:07:38 -0400
To: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
Cc: www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051008010738.GA15539@stratumtek.ca>

On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:40:59AM +0200, Paul Libbrecht wrote:

Regarding your question on the need for transforms, there is also the
semantics tag.  Using that, you can expose the "constructor" (i.e.,
my extended markup) , "presentation mathml", "markup for system A",
"markup for System b", etc. all as a group of alternative representations
and your application is supposed to choose the most appropriate one
(or provide a mechanism for you to make that selection) for its purpose.

The semantics tag is in part designed to get around the problem of having
to do transformations at run time.

The semantics tag could also give you a way of providing something to
be matched in a search.

Of course, this approach does require that applications take the semantics
tag seriously and there will no doubt arise some interesting problems
around how to choose one of the views.

In fact, I suspect the work that is needed is in providing some systematic
way of identifying what you want in a semantics group.

Stan Devitt.

> Le 6 oct. 05, à 22:13, Stan Devitt a écrit :
> >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 )
> This one is real nice!
> I understand this as a form of "macro-like-symbol" which includes 
> declaring new symbols for the sole purpose of a better presentation. I 
> think it has quite a private scope...

It is a paramaterized macro-like symbol.

An important reason to make the mathml design user extendable is so 
that we can gain practical experience with alternative constructs like this
and maybe standardize popular solutions later on after things 

> From this, I definitely understand that, in order to go to some 
> computational system you need a transformation of your content, right ?
> If this is under your control, no issue... but what if you want to 
> expose it to the world ?
> I know that for search I'd like Sum(a_i, i=1..n) to match this one.
> I also know that the content-piece I'd like to be put in my clipboard 
> if I want to paste in Maple should not be using special_seq but Sum.
> Agreeing with these two possible requirements?
> Who's working on such rewrites ?
> paul, getting excited
Received on Saturday, 8 October 2005 01:09:59 UTC

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