From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@radicalflow.com>

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:32:56 -0400

Message-ID: <007601bfa3cb$3602b960$6561a8c0@devitt.local>

To: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, <eppstein@ics.uci.edu>

Cc: <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:32:56 -0400

Message-ID: <007601bfa3cb$3602b960$6561a8c0@devitt.local>

To: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, <eppstein@ics.uci.edu>

Cc: <www-math@w3.org>

While you point out a very important development, one which I very much applaud, please note that such a translator (tex4moz) does not address the main issue addressed by the content elements. The primary role of the content elements is to allow the author to explicitly convey the mathematical structure of the object. This structure can be quite different from its visual (aural?) appearance. For example, when the author writes $D^2y$ in tex, there is no mechanism for the author to convey the fact that this is, for example, a differential operator being applied twice to the "function" y, rather than a monomial of total degree 3. One could encode such information in TeX or LaTeX by using a library of macros designed to convey such information and whose definitions are written down, but this has almost never been done in practice and in any event such information is lost after the macros have been executed. One of the challenges with MathML has been to provide some infrastructure for automatic processing of mathematical data (searches, etc) while capitalizing on the strengths of the more presentation oriented developments. There is no requirement to use content elements. Basically, they are there to be used when you need to associate mathematical definitions directly with constructs. There is a default collection of "defined" structures and a means of extending the collection. All this operates in parallel with the presentation side of things more traditionally addressed by TeX. Developments like tex4moz mean that legacy data and is immediately available. This also means that there is no down time while we collectively learn how to benefit from more automatic processing of mathematical data on the web. Stan Devitt ----- Original Message ----- From: William F. Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu> To: <eppstein@ics.uci.edu> Cc: <www-math@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 10:33 AM Subject: Re: comments re draft version 2.0 > David Eppstein <eppstein@ics.uci.edu> writes to www-math@w3.org: > > > On 4/11/2000 12:32 AM -0400, Stan Devitt wrote: > > > One of the purposes of this review is to gauge how the needs of the > > > target user community are being met and comments such as yours help > > > immensely. > > . . . > > ... but it's > > hard to see what's missing or awkward just by scanning the spec -- it > > really takes trying to translate many whole documents from many sources > > into the new system, and I don't have the time or motivation to do much > > of that. > > Indeed. > > In a related list Paul Gartside announced that he had placed the > Gurari translator from LaTeX/TeX, tex4moz, which should be very useful > in this regard, on his web site with xml (html-with-mathml) examples > that are ready for Mozilla. Just be aware that Mozilla is still alpha. > > See "http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/~gartside/mathzilla/index.html". > > -- Bill >Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2000 11:30:30 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:29 UTC
*