From: Luca Padovani <lpadovan@cs.unibo.it>

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:56:44 +0200

Message-Id: <BF372362-2D96-466D-A979-4135A1613515@cs.unibo.it>

Cc: Public MathML mailing list <www-math@w3.org>

To: paul@activemath.org

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:56:44 +0200

Message-Id: <BF372362-2D96-466D-A979-4135A1613515@cs.unibo.it>

Cc: Public MathML mailing list <www-math@w3.org>

To: paul@activemath.org

Hello Paul, On 27/mar/06, at 16:19, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > I am unclear about a clean definition of mathematical selection. > The best I could find thus far would be to select "sub-terms" only > which, I believe, correspond to subtrees in a MathML-content or > OpenMath matching tree. Comments welcome there. of course one can make his life more complicated. Just think of a matrix. There are basically three ways of encoding it in a content- oriented markup: row-major, column-major, or flat encodings. Whichever encoding you choose, there are always "sub-terms" such as a row, a column, etc. that make sense mathematically and yet that don't correspond to a subterm of the markup. > A level 2 approach would be to work with parallel markup and > enlarge any text selection to the presentation match of the > smallest content-sub-tree containing the content-match of the > smallest presentation sub-tree containing the selected text (!). if you can rely on the assumption that the structure of presentation markup is always a refinment of content markup, then annotating presentation markup with attributes is sufficient without using parallel markup (of course the attributes should mean something, and this is usually application specific). Regards, --lucaReceived on Thursday, 30 March 2006 13:57:08 GMT

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