- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:16:01 +0100
- To: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
- CC: Urs Holzer <urs@andonyar.com>, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>
On 12/07/2010 15:58, Christoph LANGE wrote: > but then, wouldn't that CD have to look like > > <CD> > <CDName>foo1</CDName> > </CD> > > ? > > Cheers, and thanks, > er well that depends. One might think so, which was why I relegated this method to a [note] in the email. But I don't believe the OM standard explicitly says that and it might be useful to take advantage of that flexibility. (but maybe that's a question for the Om list rather than this one) It wouldn't be so different from matlab.m files (which look like a function definition but if you rename the .m file, the function that gets defined is based on the file name (ie the function requested) rather than the name used in the function definition (which is ignored) David
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 17:16:48 UTC