Re: recap: MathML2 2nd WD (long)
> I think I argued earlier that it would be a very good idea to allow at
> least the bvars (with the general notion of variables bound by the
> operator). With the general meaning of conditions as representing a type
> for the bvars, I'd also prefer to have these available for user-defined
> operators or other operators or quantifiers not available in MathML.
We discussed this at our phone conference today.
On the face of it, this seems a reasonable extension.
We plan to investigate this further during this `last call' period
(We clearly would need to try to understand any implications for the
rest of the spec, and for existing systems)
Thanks for bringing this to our attention (again)