Ah, I get the difference. Is this what you are trying to say? If we assume that in an ideal future we have cdbase-aware copy/paste, then we are likely only to have it for the in-MOBJ case, not for the CDSignatures --> MOBJ case.
Michael Christoph LANGE wrote: > Dear Michael, dear all, > > On Tuesday 13 May 2008 07:51:52 Michael Kohlhase wrote: > >> I think that whatever we do, the current setup with cdbase being >> inherited from parent elements (whether that be OM Object-internal >> inheritance as specified in OM2 or the case for CDs and CDSignatures >> where you are essentially proposing document-level inheritance) >> > > Yes, but only an inheritance from the top level of the document down to the > Signature elements. In OM2 the Signature elements only refer to a symbol by > name, so the additional CD context information is needed, and that one is > given on the top level by /CDSignatures/@cd (relatively to > /CDSignatures/@cdbase). > > Of course we could decide that the Signature elements themselves point to > cdbase and cd, but on the other hand it makes sense IMHO to syntactically > enforce that a whole signature dictionary can only deal with symbols of one > CD. > > Best, > > Christoph > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Michael Kohlhase, Office: Research 1, Room 62 Professor of Computer Science Campus Ring 12, School of Engineering & Science D-28759 Bremen, Germany Jacobs University Bremen* tel/fax: +49 421 200-3140/-493140 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kwarc.info/kohlhase skype: m.kohlhase * International University Bremen until Feb. 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
