- From: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:16:46 +0200
- To: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>
- CC: www-math@w3.org
Stan, yes, thanks, this answers my question. -- Andreas Stan Devitt wrote: > > Andreas, > > We owe you a response on the issue of specifying > more than one type. > >> Is it possible to use both a "function" and a "real" type value >> simultaneously to denote a real function? > > > The answer is yes. There is nothing preventing you > from specifying a type as type="real function", or for > that matter type="function(real)". The attribute value > is only restricted to be a string. > > This also touches on a point raised by Clare So regarding > the trade-offs between an open list of types versus a close list > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2003May/0027.html > > Concensus on the committe seems to be that > the presence of a type, especially if an application > does not recognize it allows the applicatioon to > react appropriately and that the need for such > extensions out weighs the need for a fixed list. > > As you are well aware, the whole issue of types is > much more complicated, and we need to build on the > work that is being done in this area. > A note is being prepared that addresses the issue > of how to associate general types with MathML objects. > Once the spec revisions settle down we will get back > to that. > > Once again, an awknowledgement of this response > will help us to track closure of the issues. > > Stan Devitt > Math Working Group > > >
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 11:16:56 UTC