[Om3] OMS and OMV contents?

[David Carlisle]

> I was waiting for this thread to evolve before suggesting to 
> deprecate to the MathWG, because it will be a shock anyways, right ?

Basically I'm against deprecating things (or calling them legacy) as
that implies people shouldn't do it (ever). I think MathML needs to come
up with a word for the bit that's not canonical mathml that means just
that:  It's a syntactic construct that can be mapped to canonical mathml
(and so to OpenMath) but that it's perfectly OK to use it if that's what
you want to do.

I don't think we (math WG)  should discourage

<apply>
  <sin/>
    ....

and tell people that they should to use
<apply>
 <csymbol cd="...">sin</symbol>

We just need to tell people that <sin/> is defined in terms of csymbol,
and that the csymbol sin is defined in a CD somewhere. But it's
perfectly OK to use the <sin/> form.


Similarly I think we can isolate the construct 
<csymbol><mi mathcolor="red">x</mi></csymbol>
as something that's not in "canonical mathml" and so outside the scope
of OpenMath alignment, and equivalent to (something like)
<csymbol>redx</csymbol>
annotated either inline or in a CD notation declaration with the
presentation <mi mathcolor="red">x</mi>, but that we should word this
distinction in a way that doesn't imply that people should not do this.

David





________________________________________________________________________
The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 
________________________________________________________________________