- From: Amen Rafael <rafael.amen@ivf.se>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:29:32 +0100
- To: "'Robert Miner'" <rminer@geomtech.com>
- Cc: "'www-math@w3.org'" <www-math@w3.org>
Hi Considering your answer below, I feel I must hurry to ask. For literate technical programming with relatively heavy math, I've been using Gurari's ProTeX (http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~gurari/systems.html) with a special extension, so that math formulae are metaencoded once and then output * as typeset documentation (TeX quality) and * as program code (Fortran) from the same metacode. I can supply more detailed background and examples on demand. Needless to say that this metacode includes both semantic and typesetting info. In some tricky cases ProTeX has been the only way to get the results quality assured. To some extent this is because ProTeX makes program code readable for non programmers, in my case mainly but not exclusively mechanical design managers. On any account, readability is a key factor for correctness. My hope is to move to MathML instead, with two XSL sheets: the default one for documentation and a special one for code output. But MathML has two different tag sets: Presentation Markup and Content Markup, which seem to overlap quite a bit. Separating sematic from display issues is clearly not an easy thing, if it is desirable at all. My question is: Is it possible to create such a double XSL sheet system with the current MathML specification? If it is, which markup tag set should the code XSL sheet be based on? Why? MathML is too good an idea to be confined to displaying math on web pages. Rafael Rafael Amen THE SWEDISH INSTITUTET INSTITUTE OF FÖR PRODUCTION VERKSTADSTEKNISK ENGINEERING FORSKNING RESEARCH http://www.ivf.se Argongatan 30 SE-431 53 Mölndal SWEDEN >The kickoff meeting for the rechartered W3C Math working group is next >week, and one of the main agenda items is to work out a procedure for >making corrections and additions to the spec, ...
Received on Friday, 16 October 1998 03:29:29 UTC