Re: Last Call Working Draft of MathML 2.0, 2nd edition published

Stan,

Thanks for your response.

Well, Bill Naylor had suggested that one can write new OpenMath 
Content Dictionaries if more type information is needed to represent
(see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2003May/0028.html).
By reading the responses, including your response to Andreas, I 
am convinced that there is no need to change this feature of MathML.


Clare So
Student Assistant
Ontario Research Centre for Computer Algebra (ORCCA)


* Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com> [2003-06-30 21:13]:
>  
>  Clare,
>  
>  Regarding the issue of going to a fixed list of
>  types:
>  
>  Please see my response to Andreas (just sent)
>  in which I discuss the possible values of the
>  type attribute.  In the end, it boils down to a
>  strong need for the flexibility of extensions, and
>  the fact that just the presence of the attribute
>  tells the applications to be careful.  Thus
>  we are not planning on changing this feature.
>  
>  Can I ask you to acknowledge this response
>  this message to help us in tracking responses
>  to the issues that have been raised.
>  
>  Thanks,
>  
>  Stan Devitt
>  Math Working Group
>  

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 17:23:43 UTC