On 3 May 2014, at 00:28, Michael Kohlhase <[email protected]> wrote:
> I view their purpose as similar to the pragmatic-to-strict > transformation in the MathML3 recommendation. But those translations were needed because a somewhat arbitrary (from the OM viewpoint at least) collection pragmatic forms pre-existed. They would not have been created without this constraint on the need to harmonise OM and MML. Thus there does not seem to be a need for this new collection of transformations, at least not just to get ‘nicer syntax’ for a (somewhat arbitrary) collection of constructs. Or am I missing something (arbitrary)? chris _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
