From: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:45:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199607161945.PAA24964@phoebe.math.albany.edu> To: marcush@crc.ricoh.com, www-html@w3.org Subject: Re: ***MATH*** On Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:45:31 -0400 "Marcus E. Hennecke" <marcush@crc.ricoh.com> wrote to www-html@w3.org : On Tue, 16 Jul 1996 17:01:54 +0200, Lineaer Algebraiker : <ma104@math.uio.no> wrote: : . . . : > I just hope the end-product uses some experience from LaTeX, which every : > mathematician knows is the only sensible way to write mathematics. : : Not true. The problem with LaTeX's way to write math is that the computer : can't make sense out of it. It is not structural. For example: : : \int f(x)xdx : : How would the computer know that x is the integration variable? . . . LaTeX is used to mark up *mathematical text*. It is not a computer-algebra-system language nor is it intended to be markup for such. For mathematical text "\int f(x) dx" is fine. We could easily overburden HTML-MATH into oblivion by imposing a requirement that it be a markup powerful enough to service both (1) computer-algebra-system needs (presumably filterable to whatever CAS) and (2) mathematical text needs. For example, use (1) would require a means of dealing with "typing", whereas for (2) formal typing is not required. To achieve (1) would be a huge undertaking. Let's not get confused about what HTML-MATH should be. What I have seen at http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Math/WG/ suggests that the efforts are pointed in the right direction. -- Bill