From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:36:27 -0400

To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Cc: GrĂ©gory Pakosz <gpakosz@myscript.com>, "'www-math@w3.org'" <www-math@w3.org>

Message-ID: <i7oaxgse0k.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:36:27 -0400

To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Cc: GrĂ©gory Pakosz <gpakosz@myscript.com>, "'www-math@w3.org'" <www-math@w3.org>

Message-ID: <i7oaxgse0k.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> writes: > On 24/06/2014 15:56, GrĂ©gory Pakosz wrote: > > . . . > > > > 2) Despite being XML, <mstack> relies on children order > > instead of named elements like <dividend>, <divisor>, > > <quotient>. What's the rationale behind this choice? > > Positional children are used quite a lot in the mathml > design: mfrac msub etc also do not have named arguments. Two possible rationales many years ago when child position was introduced into presentation MathML might have been (a) less for authors to write and (b) smaller file size. (As I recall, the introduction of child position pre-dated David's joining the group.) Anyway, with hindsight it seems clear to me that named children for mfrac, msub, ..., mstack would have been better because it would have made a bit less work for rendering engines and processors. It would cause much harm now to throw out child position, but I think it would make sense for each of the presentation elements using child position -- certainly mfrac, msub, msup, and msubsup, probably also mmultiscripts, maybe others I haven't thought about carefully -- to provide alternate content models using named children that are essentially mrows with use restricted to the respective parents. -- BillReceived on Thursday, 26 June 2014 00:36:55 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:47 UTC
*