> No, I DID mean 'interval'. The use of 'condition' specifies a set, and I > have no problem with that. It's the assertion that this set is an interval > that worries me, i.e. the fact we are using 'interval' rather than 'set' > as the container.
Ah, I see. That is a reference to one example in appendix c of MathML2. I think that was just in error. <interval> as specified in chapter 4 of mathml2 and mathml3 takes two children specifying the end points. I can't see any text that justifes any other form. Sorry I misread the document and thought you were objecting to the limits of the integral being specifed as an arbitrary (and possibly nonsensical) domain (using <condition>) rather than using the <interval> form. 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. ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
