- From: Andreas Strotmann <strotman@cs.fsu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:54:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-math@w3.org
Hi, here is another recap of a concern I've voiced over the last two years or so, rephrased to match the current draft. - Dual role of <interval> as container and qualifier is problematic In an earlier message I pointed out that the dual role of the interval element as a constructor for an interval on the one hand and as a qualifier in an integral on the other is problematic. I gave an example where this dual role can lead to notational ambiguities and unintuitive interpretations, at least, and problems marking up legitimate mathematical constructions. Is it really necessary to have interval as a qualifier? I'm not sure if the integral, product, and sum operators (and their like) might not just come in one- and two-argument form, similar to OpenMath's representation, where the optional second argument would provide a set over which the operator ranges. In the case of an interval, that second argument might then simply be constructed using interval not as a qualifier, but as a constructor/container element. This suggestion would also solve another problem that recently resurfaced in this discussion, namely - allow something like \int_{D} f to be marked up in MathML This is not possible in the current draft, though compatibility to OpenMath should allow it (and it is apparently intended that this be allowed). [Note that f may be a lambda expression or just a csymbol.] -- Andreas ____________________________________________________________ "The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice." - G.K.Chesterton: A Defense of Humilities, The Defendant, 1901 www.chesterton.org/acs/quotes.htm
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2000 10:54:41 UTC