[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: MathML
- From: Ulrik Vieth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:42:24 +0200
- Cc: email@example.com
> I suggest readers of this group to have a look at the MathML protocol
I think I've already pointed this out some time back, but thanks for the
> * The MathML group will contact the Unicode group for mathematical
> character improvements. This seems to relate to the attempts of pinning
> down mathematical characters in this group.
> * The MathML graphical features certainly relates to similar discussions in
> this group. (For example, I suggested they bring up the question of
> commutative diagrams, perhaps making 3D commutative diagrams.)
> * Some MathML features seems to relate to a topic discussed here, namely
> how to write mathematical formulas with more semantic information (eg.
> writing \connection, a name for the mathematical object, instead of \nabla,
> a name for the graphical rendering of a mathematical object).
> If those interested have a look at it, there may come up some other aspects.
My impression is that the aims of the MathML project and our group are
somehow related, but there seem to be some different priorities:
MathML is primarily concerned with mark-up in an SGML-like fashion and
deals with the symbol complement as a secondary issue that may be
finalized somewhat later after the mark-up has been sorted out.
Our group, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with the symbol
complement, with particular emphasis on the TeXnical problems and
requirements. We already have an existing markup syntax, namely TeX,
and refinements to that, such as adding more generic tags to allow
switching between different conventions are relatively trivial to
implement, once a sufficently rich symbol complement is available.
Anyway, it would be nice if someone could find the time to do a
detailed comparison of both, particularly
- what kinds of symbols are in MathML and Unicode that we don't have
- what kinds of symbols do we have, that don't existing elsewhere
- what kinds of symbols have been proposed, that don't exist anywehre
In any case, I believe it would be helpful to establish some sort
of contact between the groups sooner or letter. Recalling that the
EuroTeX call-for-papers mentioned HTML/XML/MathML as one of the
potential topics, I wonder if there would any chance for a joint
session on MathML and math font encodings?