W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Technical reasons for some options taken on design of MathML

From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:21:58 +0200
Message-ID: <442ED2D6.9060004@activemath.org>
To: juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
Cc: www-math@w3.org

juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote:
>>>> (I tend to love QMath for extensibility, http://www.matracas.org/, thereare many others).
>>> Sorry to say this, but Qmath does not fit some requirement and therefore cannot be used.
You might want to be more detailed.
>> So will you have to write your own tool ?
> Please, look at
> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2006Feb/0012.html]
In there:
> ---Why another syntax for math?---
to which I'd answer... why *a* syntax. Your syntax seems to be more than 
pangalactic with both readability, user-friendly-input, semantic, and 
standards are merged in a single (canonical ;-)) way of speaking.
I don't think this is achievable. Therefore I would urge you to consider 
using tools (and develop them).
I'll even go deeper with blatant self-promotion: use ActiveMath 
(http://www.activemath.org/) and you get, for free, formulae 
semantic-powered-presentation and formulae-search.

Received on Saturday, 1 April 2006 19:22:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:37 UTC