From: Semirat Stephan <Stephan.Semirat@ac-grenoble.fr>

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:59:13 +0100

Cc: www-math@w3.org

Message-ID: <41189ab053b39d8b.53b39d8b41189ab0@ac-grenoble.fr>

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:59:13 +0100

Cc: www-math@w3.org

Message-ID: <41189ab053b39d8b.53b39d8b41189ab0@ac-grenoble.fr>

> Even if authoring in MathML just in a text editor, the benefits > that you > gain over going in the other direction are much tighter control > over the > input (latex doesn't really have much of a notion of validation) > and an easier conversion route. I do agree that today -theoretically- the best way to author math documents is to start from MathML and convert it to TeX. But most authors wants to code a whole math document (containing definitions, theorems, formulas, figures, etc), and convert the whole document to latex. However, what to do in practice ? : - Author an XHTML+MathML+SVG doc, so that you can put it on the web, theoretically share it with other software (Maple, Mathematica, etc.), listen to it, etc. - Convert it to LaTeX+AMS+PSTricks (or XSL-FO) (using XSLT), so that you can print it. Well, the problem is with the second step : you have to create your own XSL stylesheet to manage with theorems, definitions, etc... because there is no "standard" way to tag these "math structures". Each software (Publicon, etc.) has its own way to do it. In fact you author XHTML+MAthML document in order to get a more "universal" document, but in practice, you have to define your own tags (or use some proprietary tagging) and loose any "universality" of the language you have used. Regards, StephanReceived on Friday, 10 December 2004 09:59:16 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:57 GMT
*