- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 22:20:49 +0100
- To: hammond@csc.albany.edu
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
> I hope you are not saying that _any_ processor, e.g., a processor trying > to upgrade presentation mathml to content mathml should first translate > every mfenced to mrow in the manner described. Whether or not it converts one to the other, any mathml processor should treat these two forms the same way. mfenced is defined to be a syntactic shorthand for a particular combination of mrow and mo. One possible way of ensuring that the two forms are processed in the same way is to do a pre-pass that expands out mfenced, but that isn't required (or even a testable condition, since it's an implementation detail). Why do you see a problem with this, it's been specified this way since the earliest drafts of mathml 1? David ________________________________________________________________________ The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. ________________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 21:21:27 UTC