Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hi, Florent Georges said: > juanrgonzaleza@c... wrote: > > Hi > >> but Content MathML defines a *new* mapping and uses > >> <apply><minus/><cn>3</cn></apply> > >> because claimed advantages. > > But which advantages? I asked to MathML folks why something as LISP (divide 3 4) is encoded as <apply><divide/><cn>3</cn><cn>4</cn></apply> rather than <divide><cn>2</cn></divide> and Stan Devitt replied <blockquote> 1. Why the use of an apply "container" instead of defining each operator such as divide as a "container". Answers: a) easy to locate the operator in the XML structure b) support for arbitrarily complex operators (e.g. another apply, and/or with elaborate presentations) c) ease of extending mathml to use other symbols with associations to more formal definitions. d) support use and discussion about the operators outside of the context of applying them to arguments. 2. Why the introduction of operators and symbols as elements? Answers: a) clearly identifieable role from the rest of the document content (Try searching a long string or document for meaningful occurrences of "E".) b) elements provide an anchor for definitionURL and attributes controlling display. </blockquote> In fact, If I remember correctly, David Carlisle (also from MathML) pointed that a similar approach had been taken in last XHTML 2.0 regarding the encoding of sections and headings (is not the XHTML 1.x model). But the rest of XHTML model continue based in the old mapping. If one follow MathML philosophy it appears that a more useful model would be <apply><em/>···</apply> > Regards, > > --drkm Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
|
