On Tue, 13 May 2008, Christoph LANGE wrote: > On Tuesday 13 May 2008 12:53:15 Michael Kohlhase wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, and I think the justification was that every MOBJ should be > self-contained, not requiring any contextual information from its > enclosing CD, signature dictionary, whatever. Yes, which strikes me as an excellent goal, and maybe even one that ought to be explicit. James
_______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
