From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:55:56 +0100 (BST)

Message-Id: <200004111855.TAA03872@nag.co.uk>

To: www-math@w3.org

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:55:56 +0100 (BST)

Message-Id: <200004111855.TAA03872@nag.co.uk>

To: www-math@w3.org

> I believe that the technique of special-loaded DVI's knows > no bounds other than an author's reasonable patience (and the danger > of overloading the design of DVI). I think you need to keep two things distinct, One is having a tex like syntax (or real tex syntax) for MathML, which allows new mathML content to be authored but in a more compact style and by people and tools familiar with TeX. For such usage it is certainly possible (and would be useful, but not I think completely done yet) to specify a tex vocabulary that allowed perfect exact translation to presentation and/or Content MathML (possibly including csymbol extensions as outlined by Stan) and back to TeX. One may use a tex to xml converter as the basis of such a tool, or a radical SGML declaration to make an SGML system understand tex like syntax (about which you could say more than me:-) The other problem is translating `legacy' documents to MathML (where legacy includes a reasonable proportion of future documents until authors are brainwashed^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H trained into new practices. One may use the same kind of tools (eg tex4ht) as a basis for these translations but mapping to presentation MathML is probably the only option here and it is essentially a completely different problem. In my own case I hope to first use tex4ht to get to presentation MathML, and then use XSL and some knowledge about the subject matter of the document to convert the presentation MathML to Content markup. But this last stage is hard to do in general, It's easier if you have individual knowledge about the subject area of the document. DavidReceived on Tuesday, 11 April 2000 14:56:22 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:49 GMT
*