From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3158.217.124.69.242.1153137061.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3158.217.124.69.242.1153137061.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Patrick Ion said: > In another place, you castigate MathML for > 2) lack of an adequate input syntax (see original CanonMath program) > > A universal input syntax is something that early math markup > developments > thought would be a very good idea, and many imagined would be rather > easy to specify. They were quite wrong, of course. > > The W3C Math WG did consider input syntax questions, but decided it did > not have enough resources to specify such a thing when there was such > clear disagreement amongst WG participants as to what the syntax > should be. If the MathML WG generates a markup is so verbose cannot be typped by hand, and introduces on the markup capabilities are _not_ present in TeX and similar system, I think that conclusion that any _a priori_ advantage of MathML over TeX is lost when later is used as input syntax is really easy to obtain without need for masterminds ;-). It is very funy reading one of MathML prograndistic article in AMS bulletin, where are explained the advantages of MathML over TeX but after the same MathML WG endorsing like “nice” the IteX approach is unaware of report in another AMS bulleting that IteX input {}_a^b X will generate the completely incorrect, inaccesible, not searchable, and structurally invalid <msubsup><mrow></mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>b</mi></msubsup><mi>X</mi> whereas the specific MathML markup for prescripts will be not used. As trivial consequence most of code is being spread over the internet is just an ultraverbose version of the previous markups models that the WG critized and rejected as inadequate. > I think the new Math WG should revisit the question of input syntaxes. > In my own present opinion, there should probably be a recognition that > locally preferred input syntaxes are useful to their special > communities. This was addressed here sometime ago. Fortunately, I see in the 2006 Charter that WG plans reconsideration of its lon-time error and will begin to investigate an input syntax. The original CanonMath program addresing an input syntax for MathML was eventually abandoned but maybe some idea could be useful and reused. > > Patrick Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 11:51:33 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:38 UTC
*