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

> Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>
> 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.

Do not worry, a report with detailed technical requirements and analysis
/review of current alternatives and tools will be posted in Canonical
Science Today.

>>> 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.

If it is unachievable, future generations could learn from my own errors
and do not repeat my mistakes.

> 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.
>

Thanks by advice Paul, but I see no future on developing current tools for
I have on my mind. People use available tools when they fit all
requirements. People usually develop available tools when final outcome
can be understood as initial tool more a small "perturbation". When final
requirement are so radically different that one would begin from zero,
then it is better to begin from zero.

I need a series of technical requirements are not fulfilled by none
available tool, this is reason of development of CanonML language.

That is not criticism to ActiveMath. It works for it was designed. In no
doubt, new requirements will be needed in future, some of them could be
fulfilled with some extension of CanonML, for the rest it will be needed
new tools now we can no imagine!

> paul


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 16:10:28 UTC