- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:49:30 +0200
- To: www-math@w3.org
Bernhard Keil wrote: >>Why do you doubt that Content Markup >>is reach enough? >>Wasn't it created to struture the meaning of the mathematical expressions? > > MathML Content Markup covers only a small little subset of > Mathematics , Physics, Medical Mathemathics, ... and s.o. > It might be good enough to cover shool mathematics. That's the whole bone of difference between OpenMath and MathML-content: -> the core symbol set is hooked in MathML specification, actually a reason for the huge DTD, it indeed covers only a small math education. The one of OpenMath core is much more comfortable, I feel. -> the extensibility is possible in both cases. In MathML you specify a URI. In OpenMath you specify a content-dictionary and a name... the only difference: in OpenMath you have something to read about this content whereas behind the URI in MathML is... well, that's not specified! Paul
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 17:58:59 UTC