A few questions/suggestions about MathML 2.0


	here are some comments from a MathML user (for non rendering
purposes) on the last WD. If you find them non relevant, please
just ignore. I number them with regard to the WD section numbers: I would have liked to have in the examples for "set" that of 
the emptyset:

<set/> ? the example of the (awaited) card operator is a bit odd because:
1) it asserts the condition of veracity of the assertion ("where A is a set
with five elements").
2) unlike many (but not all) other examples, the "Default rendering" 
does not render the "Example". card is defined for sets, so why not length for lists. OpenMath had
retained a common "size" element. I feel that the "set" and "list" constructors can only have ONE "bvar"
construction (because it identifies the elements of the set, that is 
not the case for the other constructs). It might be said in the WD (I 
do not see this - or the contrary - mentionned neither in nor in the (bvar) nor in the 
4.2.5(condition), nor in the discussing sets)).
If this is not the case, what is the meaning of:


--> { x\in A, y\in B | x-y=x/y } ?

This example arouse while trying to define cartesian product by:

A*B = { <x,y> | x\in A /\ y\in B }

with the binding of two variables x and y.

  Jérôme Euzenat                  /      /\
                                _/  _   _   _ _    _
  INRIA Rhône-Alpes,           /_) | ` / ) | \ \  /_)
                              (___/___(_/_/  / /_(_________________
  655, avenue de l'Europe     /
  38330 Montbonnot St Martin,/          Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr
  France____________________/          http://www.inrialpes.fr/exmo

Received on Thursday, 24 February 2000 05:24:34 UTC