W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > April 2000

Re: comments re draft version 2.0

From: <hutch@psfc.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:01:15 -0400 (EDT)
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
cc: www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0004111556120.14830-100000@silas.psfc.mit.edu>
There is no such thing as TeX syntax for Content, except in so far as
TeX-the-programming-language could masochistically be used to express it
(shudder). TeX-the-markup-language is a Presentation representation.
TeX to Presentation translation is a solved problem (e.g. TtM).

TeX to Content translation, I submit, is an exercise in futility, for the
simple reason that there is no unique translation from Presentation to
Content. The semantics aren't defined.  

	Ian Hutchinson,

On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, David Carlisle wrote:

> > 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.
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2000 16:01:26 UTC

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