Re: Semantic Markup: mrow's are needed

On 26/06/2020 15:39, Neil Soiffer wrote:
> We have talked a little about needing proper mrow structure in order 
> to mark up prefix/posfix/infix operators. For example, the following 
> can /not/ be semantically marked up:
> <mrow>
> <mi>m</mi>
> <mo>!</mo>
> <mi>n</mi>
> <mo>!</mo>
> </mrow>
>
> It needs an extra layer of mrows around the postfix factorials in the 
> mrow.
> <mrow>
>   <mrow>
> <mi>m</mi>
> <mo>!</mo>
>   </mrow>
>   <mrow>
> <mi>n</mi>
> <mo>!</mo>
>   </mrow>
> </mrow>
>


It seems the main problem (with both forms) is the missing invisible 
times.  Using the notation of one of the current proposals 
(semantics-mini)  you could do


<mrow

|semantic="@3(@2(@1),@5(@4)) > |

   <mi>m</mi>
   <mo semantic=factorial>!</mo>
<mo>&invisibletimes;</mo>
   <mi>n</mi>
   <mo semantic=factorial>!</mo>

</mrow>


> Here's a case we haven't talked about: implicit mrows.
> <msqrt>
> <mi>n</mi>
> <mo>!</mo>
> </msqrt>


again can't you do


<msqrt semantic="sqrt(@2(@1))">
   <mi>n</mi>
   <mo semantic=factorial>!</mo>
</msqrt>



David

Disclaimer

The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business.