[Om3] Binding Integral symbols (was [Fwd: MathML CDs])

[masjhd at bath.ac.uk]

Today, David Carlisle wrote
>> I don't think they do:
>> int(sin(x),x) is not the case as int(sin(y),y): one would be -cos(x) and
>> the other -cos(y).

> I'm not sure why we can't keep the OM symbols for integration  as they
I was certainly not proposing any CHANGES to the OM symbols, unless any 
missing FMPs etc crop up in the process. I was proposing to add ones
> are, add equivalent symbols in the MML CDs, and then just deal with the
> fact that Content MathML uses <int><bvar> for indefinite integration
> which doesn't bind variables in the mapping between this "legacy" syntax
> and the canonical syntax.
I could easily add 'binder' version of the MathML definite integrator to the
CD I circulated earlier. Indeed, it could be argued that OpenMath's 
definit 'ought' to be a binder anyway.
What worries me is Michael's claim that MathML will have an indefinite 
integration which is a binder: this I do not understand.

One of the other problems is that Math2.0 talks of "the 
uplimit,lowlimit pair", and makes no mention of what happens if there 
is only one. The 3.0 draft says that they default to \pm \infty. I had 
always assumed that they would default to the variable of integration.

James