From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 11:40:11 +0100

Message-Id: <200605031040.k43AeBBn027953@edinburgh.nag.co.uk>

To: juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com

CC: www-math@w3.org

Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 11:40:11 +0100

Message-Id: <200605031040.k43AeBBn027953@edinburgh.nag.co.uk>

To: juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com

CC: www-math@w3.org

> or any other possibility denoting derivative. It is more, if we carefully > claim that Presentational MathML just render things as x^2 and x^2 without > disambiguating (this is the task of the <power/> tag of Content MathML for > example) then it may be difficult the justification for disambiguating ü > from ü in Presentation MathML 2.0. No, this isn't difficult at all as the situations are completely different. By using mover you are clearly marking up that you are using a layout form denoting some operation applied to the term represented by u, although The exact mathematical operation isn't explict and must be inferred from the context. If on the other hand you use an unicode composite then you are just saying it's a single mathematical term identified by a letter than happens to have an accent. > Do not forget that Unicode is international standard whereas MathML is > just w3c recommendation. As of course are CSS and HTML. Why are you not using the ISO standard DSSSL for styling if you don't trust the W3C to standardise things? > That in TeX is encoded as \dot{q} in MathML was encoded in four different > ways. most of the ways you showed in MathML were spurious, and of course in TeX it may be encoded in many other ways as well, \dot{q} \dot q \mathaccent "705F q \def\deriv#1{\dot{#1}}... \deriv{q} ... That's just the nature of things that even when marking up the same notation you have to account for stylistic differences in the use of markup syntax. > q-dot in a single Unicode way? Yes as it happens there is just one Unicode for q-dot, but Unicode also has issues with multiple representations as has been discussed already in this thread. For example c-dot has two representations U010b and U0063 U0307 > Maybe a full complete unification (an only way) was impossible, but note > all outputs were generated from the same input: \dot{q}. As in earlier threads, you are testing the convertors, not testing the languages. You could take a single MathML expression and 6 different MathML to TeX convertors and probably get three or four different TeX expressions, but that doesn't tell you anything about either language really. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:17:30 GMT

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