Re: What are your plans for MathML macros?

---David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote:

> However as Barry replied, the current thinking is that transforming
> syntax to MathML should be done by an external pre-process, or editing
> tool, not as part of the MathML language itself.

Maybe we ought to have a specification for the external preprocessing.
Say I have a hypothetical XML page that looks like this:

<embed syntax="URL_for_my_copy_of_TeX2XML">
6 \times 9 = 42
\left(x^2 + y^2 \right) (z) = a\ big\ headache

<embed syntax="URL_for_my_copy_of_EqLISP>
(= (+ (* a (^ x 2)) (* b x) c) 0)
<!--Don't ask what TeX2XML and EqLISP are; I made them up-->

It would be a good thing if the contents of URL_for_my_copy_Tex2XML
and URL_for_my_copy_of_EqLISP were standardized instructions for
translating TeX and EqLISP to MathML, maybe something like

<defop position="infix">
<!--rendering the TeX operator "^"-->
       <argument position="1" />
       <argument position="2" />


<!--rendering the EqLISP function "+"-->
 <group openfence="(" closefence=")">
       <argument position="1" />
       <argsep separator="&Whitespace;" />
       <argument position="2" /> 
      <argument position="1" />
      <argument position="2" />

The general idea is to have a file that has standardized instructions
for transforming so-and-so's math syntax to MathML that any
"MathML-compliant" browser could read, so that the author could use
so-and-so's math syntax without worrying about whether the guy at the
other end has the right plugin. Also, if we're dealing with embedded
stuff, it shouldn't matter (I think) whether the stuff between the
embedding tags was XML or not.


----I am a fool for Christ. Mostly I am a fool.----

Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com