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

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:04:49 +0100 (BST)

Message-Id: <200004112204.XAA16226@nag.co.uk>

To: hutch@psfc.mit.edu

CC: www-math@w3.org

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:04:49 +0100 (BST)

Message-Id: <200004112204.XAA16226@nag.co.uk>

To: hutch@psfc.mit.edu

CC: www-math@w3.org

> There is no such thing as TeX syntax for Content why ever not? A tex package could fairly easily be written that had exactly the constructs of content mathml, but in more traditional tex syntax. \apply{\sin \ci{x}} for instace, being a syntax I just made up, but which is clearly transformable to and from <apply><sin/> <ci>x</ci></apply> with no loss of information. > , except in so far as TeX-the-programming-language could > masochistically be used to express it It's fairly easy to get tex-the-program to read arbitrary xml, for example my xmltex system which is a fairly complete xml 1.0 + XML namespace parser is written in tex and typesets a growing subset of mathml, XSL FO, docbook and TEI flavours of XML. > TeX-the-markup-language is a Presentation representation. > TeX to Presentation translation is a solved problem (e.g. TtM). There are several systems do do tex to mathml, I've still had more success with tex4ht than anything else and given arbitrary tex macro markup a system like tex4ht which uses tex to do the macro expansion will always have the edge over a system trying to parse tex with an external parser, I fear. I don't think any of the systems are sufficiently reliable that the problem could be classed as completely solved so far, unless things have changed a lot recently? However I agree that this side of things is almost there and tools will soon be available to do reliable batch conversions of legacy documents. > 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. If the TeX macro package is specifically designed to encode the semantics of Content MathML, then the exercise is not at all futile. This is, as I commented in my message that you quoted, a distinct activity from converting legacy documents. DavidReceived on Tuesday, 11 April 2000 18:05:23 UTC

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