W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > June 2003

Re: errata and comments, chapters 2 and 4

From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:50:49 -0400
Message-ID: <3F00DAE9.4090507@stratumtek.com>
To: www-math@w3.org


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


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 Monday, 30 June 2003 20:48:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:33 UTC