- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:21:58 +0200
- 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. paul
Received on Saturday, 1 April 2006 19:22:13 UTC