- From: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:46:27 -0400
- To: Peter Murray-Rust <pm286@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>, Daniel Marques <dani@wiris.com>, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>
On 03/15/2012 10:24 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > Many thanks to all of you (happy to have more comments, of course, but you have > answered my concerns). There's always a requirement for *some* implicit > semantics and I think I can see a fairly clear intuitive boundary now. > > Clearly scope is important and my current implementation uses a symbol table in > the immediate parent <mathml/> (I assume that <mathml/> is not nestable, but in > case it was this defines a scope. > > My other question is whether I can include foreign namespaces. I can see things > like: You can, but it's not (purely) MathML anymore... if that matters. As you said earlier in the thread: MathML has good declarative power. But to express programming or computations, you'll need imperative. At least simple things like distinguishing the declarative relationship k=0.1 from the imperative assignment k=0.1. It isn't that MML or OM can't do that, but the content dictionaries don't provide much. You'll have an easier time declaring the relationships in MathML than expressing the demand for their computations --- assuming your computational engine can figure out what to do. However, if you do want to express the computations, I would encourage you to at least consider how those could be cast in MathML using apply, csymbol etc. and in particular using a content dictionary with symbols for expressing those imperatives. Could be useful to others! bruce > > <apply><eq/><ci>atomSet</ci><apply><cml:getatoms/><cml:molecule id="m3"/></apply> > <foreach> > <!-- iterate through the set --> > <apply><eq/><cn>aw</cn><apply><cml:getMass/><cml:atom></apply><apply> > </foreach>
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 14:47:07 UTC