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

Paul Libbrecht wrote:

> Dear Juan,
>
> I have to say that it'll be too late for me to answer you completely
> today but I don't see what are the interest of such comments.
>

Thank by your patient. I want just to learn from others! Due to my
scientific training I am aware to ask why...

> I also believe you mix up operator-based syntax (where precedence is
> defined) with content-syntax which is standardized... and I see no
> reason to mix them!

Well, maybe you are right, but I also see no reason for some technical
decision taken in MathML 2.0 and I think I can ask for it!

> If you want a comfortable syntax for input of formulae, any XML is
> horrible whatsoever... use extensible parsers and converters as there
> are many!

And as I already explain here in the past and also in Canonical Science
Today, I was neglecting all parsers/tools (including popular sintaxes as
TeX/LaTeX and ASCIIMath...) due none of them passed all requirement needed
for kind of work we do.

> (I tend to love QMath for extensibility, http://www.matracas.org/, there
> are many others).

Sorry to say this, but Qmath does not fit some requirement and therefore
cannot be used.

> paul

[snip]


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)