- From: Miller, Bruce R. (Fed) <miller@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 01:37:58 -0400
- To: public-mathml4@w3.org
On 6/29/20 9:11 PM, Neil Soiffer wrote: > Apologies for the delayed reply -- I put some blinders on for a few days > to grind out some code to linebreak/indent MathML. > > I think David's second reply is the correct one as to my way of > thinking. Using my current (but now old) proposal: > <mrow notation="times(factorial(@1), factorial(#3))"> > <mi>m</mi> > <mo>!</mo> > <mi>n</mi> > <mo>!</mo> > </mrow> > > I think Deyan was aiming at something like that using his proposal's > notation, but I don't think it is right. Nowhere is "factorial" present. Right, I think what he was *trying* to say was <mrow notation="times(@f1(@b1),@f2(@b2))"> <mi arg="b1">m</mi> <mo arg="f1" notation="factorial">!</mo> <mi arg="b2">n</mi> <mo arg="f2" notation="factorial">!</mo> </mrow> Which is semantically equivalent to what you wrote, but has the advantage that an agent can more easily track that each "!" corresponds to factorial (for highlighting, navigation, ... or even linking ? :> > Neil > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:57 AM Deyan Ginev <deyan.ginev@gmail.com > <mailto:deyan.ginev@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > The mini proposal also allows to annotate any presentation tree, but > you sacrifice the granularity of the annotation - it floats higher. So > Neil's tree can be annotated as (using the syntax that seemed to be > the consensus form after yesterday's meeting): > > <mrow semantic="times(@factorial1(@base1),@factorial2(@base2))"> > <mi arg="base1">m</mi> > <mo arg="factorial1">!</mo> > <mi arg="base2">n</mi> > <mo arg="factorial2">!</mo> > </mrow> > > Greetings, > Deyan > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:48 AM David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk > <mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk>> wrote: > > > > 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. Please see our Privacy Notice for information on how we > process personal data and for details of how to stop or limit > communications from us. > > > > 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. > > -- bruce.miller@nist.gov http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2020 13:11:24 UTC