FW: SPAM-LOW: Re: N-ary objects in Office Math Markup Language (OMML)

Tue Nov 14 15:36:45 CET 2017

From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2017 1:09 AM
To: Francis Cave <francis at franciscave.com>
Cc: Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>; MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: N-ary objects in Office Math Markup Language (OMML)

Francis,

In Geneva, let's first divide this DR into smaller DRs and try to solve easy 

ones.

Here are my observations  Rex, I think that you do not 

have to merge them into the current DR, since we should 

first divide the DR.

>The term “math argument” as used in §22.1.2.5 is not defined. In fact, there are four elements in 

>this category: §22.1.2.26 deg, §22.1.2.32 e, §22.1.2.112 sub and §22.1.2.114 sup.

There are four more elements.

22.1.2.28 den (Denominator) 

22.1.2.37 fName (Function Name)

22.1.2.52 lim (Limit)

22.1.2.75 num (Numerator) 

>§15.1 defines ‘n-ary operator’ to be “An operator that involves n terms when expanded…’.

> But in OMML the term n-ary applies not only to true n-ary operators, such as finite series 

>summation and series product, but also to the integral operator, which is not normally

> described as an n-ary operator.

Is an equation array (22.1.2.34 eqArr (Array Object) ) is 

also an n-ary operator?  At least, it has an e element (Argument) 
for each line.

I think that the definition in 15.1 is misleading and unnecessary.

>The only prose specification of the element sub is in §22.1.2.112, but this specifies a particular case, not the general case.

Should we add two more simple examples?

<m:sPre>

  <m:sub/>

  <m:sup>

    <m:r>

      <m:t>2</m:t>

    </m:r>

  </m:sup>

  <m:e>

    <m:r>

      <m:t>A</m:t>

    </m:r>

  </m:e>

</m:sPre> 

<m:sPre>

  <m:sub>

    <m:r>

      <m:t>1</m:t>

    </m:r>

  </m:sub>

  <m:sup/>

  <m:e>

    <m:r>

      <m:t>A</m:t>

    </m:r>

  </m:e>

</m:sPre> 

Regards,

Makoto

2017-11-03 3:38 GMT+09:00 Francis Cave <francis at franciscave.com <mailto:francis at franciscave.com> >:

Hi Rex

DR attached. I’ve revised the wording to fit the DR template more cleanly.

Kind regards,

Francis

From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com <mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com> ] 
Sent: 02 November 2017 16:08
To: 'Francis Cave' <francis at franciscave.com <mailto:francis at franciscave.com> >; 'MURATA Makoto' <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp <mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> >
Subject: RE: N-ary objects in Office Math Markup Language (OMML)

Francis, I think you should make this a DR, so we have a formal track record of it. How about you make it one DR, and if when we work on it we think it makes sense to split one or more items off into separate DRs, we can do that then.

Regards, Rex

From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 3:10 PM
To: 'MURATA Makoto' <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp <mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> >; Rex Jaeschke <rex at RexJaeschke.com <mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com> >
Subject: N-ary objects in Office Math Markup Language (OMML)

Murata-san, Rex

I’ve had occasion to take a close look at §22.1 Math in 29500:2016-1.

There are a number of minor editorial nits in this section, but one particular point has struck me, and I’m wondering if this is worthy of a separate DR submission, or can be treated as an editorial nit.

Clause §22.1.2.70 defines the element <m:nary> (n-ary Operator Object). Clause §15.1 defines ‘n-ary operator’ to be “An operator that involves n terms when expanded…’. But in OMML the term n-ary applies not only to operators such as finite series summation and series product but also to the integral operator, which is not normally described as an n-ary operator. I think therefore that the definition of ‘n-ary operator’ in Clause §15.1 should be changed to read something like “A mathematical operator comprising an operator character and, optionally, expressions of a lower limit, an upper limit, or both.”

Clause §22.1.2.70 itself contains a typo and also contradicts the schema. The first paragraph should begin:

This element specifies an n-ary object, consisting of an n-ary objectoperator, a base (or operand), and optional upper and lower limits.

In syntactic terms the word ‘optional’ contradicts the schema, in which all the child elements <m:sub>, <m:sup> and <m:e> are mandatory. It might be worth noting that any of these elements may be empty.

Editorial “nits” that I’ve spotted include:

*	In §22.1.2.4, the example includes “Example (OFF)” and “Example (ON)”, which I think we clearer if these were ‘not aligned’ and ‘aligned’ respectively.
*	The term “math argument” as used in §22.1.2.5 is not defined. In fact, there are four elements in this category: §22.1.2.26 deg, §22.1.2.32 e, §22.1.2.112 sub and §22.1.2.114 sup. They all share the same complex type ‘CT_OMathArg’. I suppose it could be argued that the term doesn’t need to be defined, because it has the generally-accepted meaning in a mathematical context.
*	In §22.1.2.6, the use of the term “degree argument” in the last line of text in the example doesn’t make sense.
*	In §22.1.2.26 the second sentence contradicts the schema, as the element <m:deg> is not optional in the schema.
*	In §22.1.2.71, two occurrences of “built down form”, which should be “built-down form” with a hyphen.
*	The only prose specification of the element <m:sub> is in §22.1.2.112, but this specifies a particular case, not the general case. Either this Clause needs to be generalized, or a new Clause defining <m:sub> in the general case needs to be added. This element occurs in many content models in addition to <m:sPre>.
*	In §22.1.2.88 the first sentence contradicts the schema, as the element <m:deg> is not optional in the schema. The example in §22.1.2.89 correctly shows an empty <m:deg/> element, for the case where there is no degree object/argument in the math expression as rendered.

I’m happy to submit one or more DRs, if you think that appropriate.

Kind regards,

Francis

-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20171114/7abfb10c/attachment-0001.html>