Re: SGML style display list specification

Having examined the display-list specification which Robert posted
last week, I can venture a few broad comments.

My concern is in the relation between our display-list format and the
ISO 12083 math DTD developed a couple of years ago (a copy of which
was recently posted at http://www.ams.org/html-math/erb/iso12083.html).
It isn't clear to me that 12083 had any influence on the display language
posted here last week, although Robert had said:

> ... Since they all attempt to do the same thing, it is no surprise
> this proposal looks a fair amount like ISO 12083, ...

I would like to see much closer alignment between these two SGML
descriptions than exists at the moment.  E.g. with notations which
differ somewhat arbitrarily (say, with "pre" superscipts), I don't see
a reason to "roll our own".  Our display-list language seems more
concrete than I think we want it to be (e.g. I think it's unnecessary
for our language to allow specification of the "script size"
[attribute sizemultiple] -- or is there an example where making a
close specification of this size is crucial?  This is a question
beyond simple style.).

I could continue with a host of these smallish comments, but would
like others to examine the two SGML markup sets and comment on whether
they see the thrust of the two differing as I do (and then indicate
which language is closer to what we want).  I'll provide more detail
if people would like it.