- From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:15:03 -0700 (PDT)

Some people has prompted to reuse LaTeX. People who want reuse LaTeX can ?do? it, in the same way that one can reuse existing jsMath. However, mixing of two different languages is usually considered to be a bad practice. For example x < 5 is okay in TeX but prohibited in XML. A = 3$ & B = 5% is valid XML but is not in TeX, etcetera. Moreover to problems with entities and reserved characters, (unicode vs. 7-bit encoding) and other related difficulties; there are technical points forcing to reject which as has been done during last decades by *all* markup or computer language except TeX-like ones, of course. The fact TeX/LaTeX is not suitable for web did that the LaTeX guru D. Carlisle was interested in mathematical language and joined to the w3c. Carlisle knows very well LaTeX and extensions he has done. He could solve your doubts better I can. There has been multiple attempts to extend or adapt TeX to the web (extended TeX approaches, TeXML...), all attempts failed by one or other reason. There has been also attempts to display math in the web using web browsers natively understanding TeX source (e.g. IBM launched one of this kind) but also failed by technical motives. I have not time for recopilating all information in the topic of ?why not TeX/LaTeX?. However, I can cite some recent links of interest http://www.w3.org/Arena/tour/math1.html http://www.mathmlcentral.com/history.html http://my.opera.com/White%20Lynx/blog/show.dml/256124 http://www.w3.org/Math/mathml-faq.html It would be also noted that next LaTeX will change for adapat to the SGML/XML world. For example current research work for future LaTeX3 promise us a new syntax for further SGML world compatibility and will incorporate novel feature such as native support for the SGML concepts of ?entity?, ?attribute? and ?short reference?. The new LaTeX3 will incorporate style-sheet concepts such as those we used today with HTML. I also would note others limitations of TeX and related systems apparently ignored at this mailing list. Jonathan Fine adds: <blockquote> Plain TeX, LaTeX and ConTeXT all use the familiar `backslash and braces' input syntax. This can cause problems, because it is not rigorous. Translation to HTML for example, requires that the source document be parsed. But LATEX for example is in general the only program that can successfully parse LATEX documents. This tends to result in (La)TEX living in a world of its own, isolated from the world of desktop publishing and word processing. For some communities of users, such as mathematicians, this may not be a hardship. </blockquote> But is a hardship for rest of the world and reason that Active TeX was proposed. In fact, LaTeX is much more complex that kind of approach is being proposed here. Rahtz described LaTeX as <blockquote> hugely powerful, but chaotic, and on the verge of becoming unmanageable. </blockquote> When people is talking of LaTeX here I suspect them are talking only of some basic LaTeX constructs as \frac, \vec, and others. I would be glad if anyone explains here how a root beta of k can be encoded in LaTeX and next fine-tuned e.g. moving index 2 units to the left and 4 units up or how would we encode the hat of large base as ABCD or the four dotting of Q or what are TeX/LaTeX constructs for ∑? H 0<i<m or a X and X b Mihai Sucan wrote: >>> I'd be interested of your Canon (Markup Language). >> >> Thanks! M is for Meta, because the language is also a formal language >> :-) >> >> Please copy anything of interest and report me errors or best ways to >> do things. > > I would like to see a specification of CanonML and working examples with > an experimental implementation. Your site provides only talk about > CanonML. Is it too early to ask for this? > > If you have some, send it over to my (private email). CanonML is in an early research stage. There is not formal specification still because is a research in progress. The canonical science blog includes history of the program and an outline of current ideas. More recent post update previous postings. The research has proved to be more variable I wait in a principle. I initially copied many aspects from available TeX, SGML/XML, content MathML, and OpenMath, but after changed by better options. Recently I have eliminated the concpet of ?entities? (which I have discored is also an idea proposed by some XML gurus as Tim Bray). Variablity of research may be understood since I am trying to offer more power than SGML/XML maintaining the full language more easy than TeX/LaTeX and that is really very difficult. However I wait to finalize the work in a few weeks and just prepare first formal specification for debate. Ok I will send you. >>> Math WebSearch - A semantic search engine >>> http://search.mathweb.org/ >>> http://kwarc.eecs.iu-bremen.de/software/mmlsearch/ >>> >>> I'm not sure if searching math is entirely a myth. This is a recent >>> guided research project done by a student of Dr. Kohlhase. >> >> I was referring to MathML. Somewhat as MathML is not very popular at >> the browser side it is not popular at the search engine side. > > Maybe you didn't look into the site careful enough. I was also referring > to MathML. Sorry, I did mean ?I was referring to presentation MathML. Somewhat as presentation MathML is not very popular at the browser side it is not popular at the search engine side.? > MathWebSearch is an entire application which deals with indexing Content > MathML and allows users to input Content MathML code as search query. > Therefore, that's not something different. As far as I know, the > semantic search engine can be extended to any XML format (for indexing > and for search query input). The guy actually added support for > OpenMath search queries. More technical details are available in the > page. This approach is highly limited since is based in two specifications with problems. I have discussed those topics with specialists from a popular search engine (for a project here at the Center) and recommend me do not follow that way. I can try <apply> <eq></eq> <ci>E</ci> <apply> <times></times> <ci>m</ci> <apply> <power></power> <ci>c</ci> <cn type='integer'>2</cn> </apply> </apply> </apply> in the engine and I receive ?Your search returned no results!? The same using other versions. However go to Google and try E=mc^2 or even E=mc2. Content MathML only can encode simple formulae, has not browser support (is less browser friendly that presentation MathML) and minimal number of authoring tools. Moreover even at very simple formulae it offers problems because we do not know as formulae will be encode. For example I can suspect how a mathematician or physicist can encode a+b using text. Most (all?) of people would encode it as $a+b$ in raw TeX and I could search for ?a+b? in a hypotetical TeX-like search engine. But what would I type in the MathML search engine you cited? Michel Fortin wrote: > I would also use <f> instead of <formula> (as Juan used in one of his > example), because it's shorter and fits well with many other wildly > used container elements: <p>, <h1>-<h6>, <ol>, <ul>, <li>, <dl>, <dt>, > and <dd>. Or maybe tag names would follow some XHTML conventions: quote <---> blockquote code <---> blockcode formula <---> blockformula for a better transition from HTML users to HTML-Math. But some people would prefer HTML5 way q <---> blockquote f <---> blockformula and others a TeX way $ <---> $$ f <---> ff on any case this part of debate would be posponed until final. Once elements, attributes and content model were known, we can debate about names. Alexey Feldgendler wrote: > Why have <f> at all? When I'm writing about <var>x</var>, why should I > write <f><var>x</var></f>? What would be the difference? I think a > <formula> element is only needed for what is called "display equations" > -- they are rendered out of line, usually centered, and sometimes > numbered. > > That way, inline math would require no special element at all -- just > write math in the middle of a sentence, and it should work. On the other > hand, when math is put inside a <formula>, it's displayed on a line by > itself, centered, numbered etc. And, by the way, one can actually have > just plain text inside a formula, such as some statement in prose that > needs to be centered and numbered like other formulae. I prefer maintain special tag for inline formulae somewhat as there exist a $...$ construct in TeX or somewhat like there is an inline quote element in HTML. Moreover you can still write <var>x<var> in textual mode. Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Received on Thursday, 8 June 2006 11:15:03 UTC