- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:58:22 GMT
- To: juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
- CC: www-math@w3.org
> I find really interesting that XPath language developed by w3C has NOT a > XML syntax. yes there are times when a non xml syntax is good, but a syntax that uses mixed markup, some XML and some characters is rather hard to handle as you can neither pass the entire text node over to an external parser (as you would with embedded tex or xpath) nor get the parse tree from the xml parse of the document, as you would from an XML syntax such as openmath or mathml. Your proposal appears to be essentially a variant of content mathml with a more infix syntax and allowing more operators with different presentation but the same semantics. It is also important to address the issues that presentation mathml aims to address, namely the ability to express the layout of mathematical expressions _without_ requiring the specification of the semantics (either because the semantics are unknown or too hard to express formally (in a given amount of time) or there are no semantics, for example educational examples of incorrect notation. I can write <msup><mi>H</mi><mn>2</mn></msup> without having to specify anywhere what cohomology is. David
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2006 14:59:26 UTC