Re: Technical reasons for some options taken on design of MathML

Re: Technical reasons for some options taken on design of MathML

Bruce Miller wrote:
>
> juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote:
>>  What is the objective of repeating I already said?
>
> I'm wondering the same thing.

That is your great contribution since February? I wonder more still.

> juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote:
>> Any case the point is not possible misunderstanding about above
>> ASCII art did mean.
>
> The fact that everyone is asking what it meant and interpreting
> it differently than you apparently intended just might be a
> clue that it, in fact, _is_ possible to misunderstand.

But the point is not about misunderstanding a possible ASCII art. But by
remarking just that unimportant detail again you carefully ignore the real
point of discussion; THAT point, which you are contributing with zero
ideas and data.

In fact, it has been well explained that ASCII art did mean, but you
continue emphasizing just that now. I wonder.

The important point (you carefully erased from my previous reply) is that
the ASCII art cannot be encoded in MathML 2.0 but can be in ISO 12083.
Your noise reply cannot change that fact. Sorry if that was your attempt!

> Being a student, to varying degrees of success, of
> a few foreign languages, I'm generally not given
> to criticizing non-native speakers of english.
> However, I think that your comments would be more
> productive --- assuming you're actually
> trying to have a constructive discussion --- if
> you would spend a bit more effort (1) attempting
> to understand the explanations that have already
> been given to you and (2) explaining carefully
> and concisely exactly what you are looking for.

You can continue to add noise to discussion instead of providing solutions
for problems are discussed here.

> Ranting, yelling, insulting and repeating yourself
> ever louder, all the while claiming that you couldn't
> possibly be misunderstood really isn't that productive.
> Nor does it reflect well on either you or the
> "Canonical Science" project.

I already suspected this kind of reply from you. You are providing
absolutely no serious thinking about nothing has been recently debated:
You are proposing none proposal, interesting discussion, technical
details, etc. since February. Again you continue with that politics of add
noise to discussion or focus just in details very far from mathematical
issues debated.

You have provided none alternative, none evaluation of February questions,
none thought about scripts, tokens, input syntaxes, scientific
requirements, semantics, etc.

This thread has a beatiful title: Technical reasons for some options taken
on design of MathML.

Your contribution to technical details has been one can read in your
previous message. Your reply is full of technical details ;-)

I do not need add anything more to your recent "political" message. You
are self-explicative...

> --
> bruce.miller@nist.gov
> http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 18:21:39 UTC