[Om3] target K14 for reading content-math spec any realistic?

[Professor James Davenport]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Stan Devitt wrote:
> I probably did not say quite what I mean.  Of course the branch cuts
> matter, and the actual definition needs to be precise and fairly
> standard.  
No problem - it'shard to cover all the bases. 
> However, from an authoring point of view, we should comfortable using
> that "default" right up to the point that, for example, we needed to
> talk about the differences between two different definitions, in which
> case for precision, I would need to provide a link to a definition  of
> the non-standard one.
Of course, for, say, arctan, there are an infinity of possible "oterh 
definitions", which is the problem.
> As for the level of description in the summary, it needs to specify at a
> minimum.
> 
>   1)  a clear indication to which definition is being used (probably by
> reference to the liturature.
>   2)  a description that is accessible to the casual mathematician.
Agreed.
But what I am saying is that it is impossible to do both in the one 
description. Of course, we don't NEED two items, we could say, for 
example, instead of my proposed
<overview>
The arctan function is the inverse of the tan function
</overview>
<detail>
As defined in A+S and ISO/IEC10967. The specification (and therefore
branch cuts) in terms of log are given in the CMPs/FMPs
</detail>

<Description>
The arctan function is the inverse of the tan function.
More precisely, it is as defined in A+S and ISO/IEC10967. The 
specification (and therefore branch cuts) in terms of log are given in the 
CMPs/FMPs.
</Description>

James