- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:34:41 +0200
- To: jimbofc@yahoo.com
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
Actually, I have the impression that OMDoc[1] might respond to most of the requests... Among others, it provides structuring at a higher level than at the formula level, it provides, with this, an architecture to declare new symbols and to define them, and it supports stylesheet-enrichments for new symbols. At least for these aspects, I think that it is a good choice which follows the principle of "pure content" encoding as we are doing it within the ActiveMath[2] learning environment. Paul [1] http://www.mathweb.org/omdoc [2] http://www.activemath.org/ On Mercredi, avril 17, 2002, at 09:36 , David Carlisle wrote: >> One thing I don't like about MathML-Content (MMLC) is that there are a >> great >> many of built-in operators and constants. > > There are advantages and disadvantages in having built in names. > If you prefer a style without then openmath is your friend: > (www.openmath.org) Your "modules" idea corresponds closely to openmath > content dictionaries. > > (Many of us work on both openmath and mathml, the two languages are > rather well connected these days) > > David
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 18:34:21 UTC