From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:58:50 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID: <3722.217.124.88.143.1164643130.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Cc: <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:58:50 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID: <3722.217.124.88.143.1164643130.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Cc: <www-math@w3.org>

David Carlisle said: > > >> For instance how can <csymbol> be intended to denote symbols with an >> _external_ definition if the definition location doesn't matter at the >> same time. > > perhaps we have a prior agreement that if you send me > <csymbol>C02AHF</csymbol> > that I'll calculate the roots of a quadratic, If you send the expression > to another system, then most other systems just get to know it's some > function defined externally, but that is still useful information, > compared to just using C02AHF as a variable name, as would happen with > ci. You could perhaps add > http://www.nag.co.uk/numeric/FL/manual/xhtml/C02/c02ahf.xml > as a definition URL to give other people an indication as to where that > function is defined, but another mathml system is unlikely to be able to > interpret that page. Interesting discussion but is not i asked. I asked does the definition location matters or not for selecting <csymbol> over <ci>? > >> I am just curious, what is the difference between >> >> <sin/> >> >> <csymbol >> definitionURL="http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/appendixc.html#cedef.sin >> ">sin</csymbol> >> >> <ci >> definitionURL="http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/appendixc.html#cedef.sin >> ">sin</ci> > > they probably are all intended to denote the same function, so one > answer to your question is "no difference", but any MathML system has > knowledge that the first one denotes the sin function, whereas unless > the system can read and interpret english html text (unlikely) or > special case URI references to appendix C of the spec (possible) a > system will not autmatically know that the second and third denote the > sin function. Then <ci> and <csymbol> are redundant each other, because for each <csymbol i can write a <ci definitionURL>. Other guy agreed that <sin/> and <csymbol definitionURL="http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/appendixc.html#cedef.sin ">sin</csymbol> both represent same mathematical function and can be used in all the same places. But apparently he think no the same about the third case. > If you are writing mathml, then if your identifier denotes a symbol with > a fixed external definition, use csymbol, unless you also need to target > MathMl1 readers, in which case use ci. If your identifier denotes an > object without a fixed external definition use ci. Thanks by recommendation. Another i received was: "Thus, <csymbol/> would be used to reference known or specific constants or functions - possibly defined in the containing document, or even in the MathML spec - the definition location doesn't matter." "To apply the same function to a specific defined constant (possibly defined in the containing document) <apply> <csymbol definitionURL="thePlaceWhereThisfunctionIsDefined">F</csymbol> <csymbol definitionURL="MyFavouriteSymbolicConstant">k</csymbol> </apply>" Are not both contradictory recommendations?Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 16:01:25 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:59 GMT
*