From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>

Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:32:40 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3196.217.124.88.178.1146241960.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:32:40 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3196.217.124.88.178.1146241960.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Richard Kaye wrote: > > How about: > > "3.2 Token Elements > Token elements in presentation markup are broadly intended to > represent the > smallest units of mathematical notation which carry > meaning. Tokens are > roughly analogous to words in text. However, because of > the precise, > symbolic nature of mathematical notation, the various > categories and > properties of token elements figure prominently in MathML > markup. By > contrast, in textual data, individual words rarely need to > be marked up or > styled specially." > > My reading of this is that if your dot means differentiation, you > should use mover. If x-dot is just some wierd atomic symbol > chosen by an > eccentric author you should use the unicode. > > Richard > Just note that I cited why Unicode would be preferred and that STIX is choosing Unicode (including diacritical marks) in a previous posting. I simply do not know in what part of above extract from MathML specification Richard Kaye read that <mover> is preferred over Unicode. I obtained the range 0300-036F Unicode standard (MathML is not a standard and standards may be preferred over not ones) and searched for "x-dot" (i.e. for "combining dot above"). The Unicode value is 0307. Just in the first line of the description of the code says "= Derivative (Newtonian notation)" Let me remark that there is a "=" The standard also notes relationship with Unicode 02D9 (dot above also but *not* in math section). The description for latter is "Mandarin Chinese fifth tone" Therefore, it appears the Unicode Standard folks have distinguished between the "dot-above atomic symbol" and the "dot derivative of a mathematical symbol". I know nothing of Mandarin Chinese, therefore, I cannot opine if use of x-dot would be considered "eccentric" or needed in that language and, therefore, I cannot encourage or discourage its use. Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)Received on Friday, 28 April 2006 16:33:02 GMT

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