- From: Luca Padovani <lpadovan@cs.unibo.it>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:11:00 +0200
- To: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Cc: <www-math@w3.org>
Hello Juan,
On 30/mar/06, at 08:13, <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> - what is the argument to use some like
>
> <apply><divide/><ci>A</ci><cn>2</cn></apply>
>
> instead of shorter
>
> <divide><ci>A</ci><cn>2</cn></divide> ?
note that, when talking about XML markup, generally shorter/longer is
a parameter that has little weight. Structure preservation and
uniform encoding of constructs are regarded as much more important
parameters.
> - What is the reason for
>
> <apply><plus/><cn>5</cn><cn>8</cn></apply>
>
> instead of calculator-like
>
> <apply><cn>5</cn><plus/><cn>8</cn></apply> ?
I think others have already answered this. Let me stress that <plus/>
is a n-ary operator/function (in MathML). Also, content markup is not
supposed to mimic any particular (=> familiar) syntax or representation.
> base^{index1 index2}
>
> of TeX systems ?
this is not XML :-)
In general, when thinking about the XML encoding of a document, it
usually helps me a lot to keep in mind this: information is the thing
that matters. Information must be there, explicitly encoded in the
document (at least those pieces of information that are relevant in
the context I'm working in). Also, the XML encoding is (very) rarely
the format the user will directly write and see.
Best regards,
--luca
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 14:11:18 UTC