[Om] Content-dictionary notations draft

[Paul Libbrecht]

I realize that a link from the ocd file, that could be URL-pointed-to  
thanks to the cdbase attribute, to one of these files would then be  
also be needed.

Of course, one can also play the game of changing the file suffix or  
the accept-mime-types negotiation but... is it good practice ? At  
least the default Apache configs are not really ready for this.

paul


Le 20 mars 07 à 16:36, David Carlisle a écrit :

>
>> actually I missed the fact that it's to be aside... do you care to
>> elaborate why ? Or better... why only ??
>> I'm fine to have it in such an annex as an STS file!
>
> for OM I think it should be in a separate file cf the sts files,  
> for the
> same reason, to maintain the distance between the semantic/content
> nature of the CD and any possible rendering. However in the parallel
> discussion about a CD-like notation for mathml, it makes sense for  
> it to
> be in the same file, as MathML has an immediate relationship with the
> presentation form, and historically (unlike openmath) every content
> mathml expression has a default presentation.  If we want (at some  
> point
> in the future) to say that the MathML CD and syntax are alternative
> concrete syntaxes for the abstract OpenMath and OpenMath CD models,  
> this
> may mean that the abstract CD model needs to allow presentation
> specification, even if the XML OpenMath CD format does not...
>
> David
>