W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > March 2006

Re: Technical reasons for some options taken on design of MathML

From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 06:17:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3138.217.124.69.221.1143814675.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>
To: <www-math@w3.org>

Pankaj Kamthan wrote:
>
> Juan,
>
> MathML 1.0/2.0 are language 'specifications', not primers or user manuals.

Yes, I agree but I was not asking for usage (which may be addressed by
manuals). I was asking for technical reasons for *that* specification. The
own specification would be correct place to explain technical issues, but
this forum is also good. However, as you can see, Authors of MathML are
not explaining the rationale beyond decisions taken.

In fact, you can see in many replies to my message that each guy is
asumming different reason for the rationale, which indicates is not clear
why that specification is that it is.

> The rationale should become clear once the purpose of <apply>, <msup>,
> and the difference between prefix (used by MathML) and postfix
> notations is understood. (You may not like the use of base as mixed
> content in your example but that is a different matter.)
>
> Pankaj Kamthan
>

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Received on Friday, 31 March 2006 14:18:18 GMT

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