Le 23-mars-09 à 18:05, Robert Miner a écrit :
2) The two-stage translation of qualifiers into a domain of application,and thence into OM may not be ideal, but we know it is a) as mathematically meaningful as anything else, b) is most compatible with the bulk of the current text in Ch 4 c) compatible with the large amount of XSLT David has developed over many years d) backwardly compatible with MML2/OM2
I have the exact opposite feelings here about the addition of a condition child to bind/ombind: - it makes it easy to translate condition and domain-of-application elements which were in many places in MathML-content-2 - it's an extension that seems easy to manage in a set of XSLT: any match for ombind is enriched with a check on cardinality 2, probably a single template can do it for ombind of three children applying templates on a rephrased object (that might need an extension).
But unfortunately, I'm neither David's XSLTs author, nor an active writer in chap 4 so my voice maybe does not count. Under my own perspective, I promise it would help readability and writable of a lot of expressions.
3) A change to something such as Michael and James have proposed is[...]d) is not backward compatible, and would introduce a heavy dependencyin MML3 on OM3, even though the latter shows no sign of being done any timesoon.
I felt convinced by, indeed, the lack of activity of OM3, even though James' activity can't be said to be zero. But really, it is a pure extension where only erroneous objects would be endowed with a new semantic.
Calling this backward-incompatible is as wrong as calling this a breaking change, it is breaking errors!
paul
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
