W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Representing complex variable names in Content MathML

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:50:38 GMT
Message-Id: <200811101550.mAAFoc6J006268@edinburgh.nag.co.uk>
To: r.muetzelfeldt@ed.ac.uk
Cc: www-math@w3.org

> I'm not sure either of your suggested alternatives is appropriate in 
> this context.

yes all versions have pros and cons and really only you can jusdge that
in context, i was just floating some suggestions.....

> The first one (using <apply> and <csymbol>) does not seem to distinguish 
> between different categories of term that go to make up a compound 

Yes I was aware of that as I wrote the example but didn't feel competemt
to suggest different constructor symbols for constructing what you need.
As you say there is a tradeoff in designing such a thing between nesting
depth of construction (if you use fewer more generic composble
constructors, and combinatorial explosion of symbols needed, if you
avoid nesting by having specific "compound" symbols.

so you could have


That is reflect your "Variable Markup Language" into MathML  at all
levels of the term construction rather than using semantics.
However I'm not sure that your really want to do that if you are then
going to use that term itself in nested apply's it might make the 
conceptual break between expressions using these terms and the
construction of the terms themsleves...

> So looks like I'll stick with <semantics>, unless I've missed something 
> from either of your two options.

Probably not.


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 Monday, 10 November 2008 15:51:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:41 UTC