LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:45:42 +0000
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
1.0 1.0
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Chris Rowley <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (80 lines)
Ah, Will, your memory is too good, if not entirely equivalent to mine:-).

>>> (oh, ASAP I guess) but considering Hans has had MathML2 rendering  
>>> in ConTeXt
> That seems to be totally irrelevant to a LATEX list.

Weren't you the one that said LaTeX's best chance of survival was by  
leveraging ConTeXt MkIV as a backend? (Excuse the error if I'm wrong;  
I'm still sleep deprived.)
Memory is a most unreliable guide to the truth but my version of what I said is:

  leveraging Context (or even using it) seems the only sensible current method to leverage whatever benefits a future LaTeX may gain from luatex's functionaility.  I say 'currently' (at least for now) because that may change if luatex becomes a developed system, depending on how totally integrated with Context philosophy and implementations it then is.  Of course by then, Taco may give us a system that 'does things right' by building a DOM-like structure and treating text as, well, just textual data, not a string of commands (and similarly with mark-up, which brings us right back to the other current topic with the question:

  \section: is it mark-up or an (imperative and immediate) commsnd?

> Also, your clear lack of interest is odd given all the time you have  
> put into the basic stuff on LaTeX-math for XeTeX/Unicode that I  
> thought the group could combine with David's stuff.

When I wrote my message I was unaware of the (seemingly otherwise  
invisible?) pmml2tex. This changes things considerably, since it means  
no-one will have to parse XML in LaTeX.
Sorry if I gave that impression: I no more believe in that than I do in LaTeX parsiing LaTeX (or come to think of it, using LaTeX as a parser at all, which also brings us back to the question):

  see above

> Finally, for PR reasons if nothing else, it would be useful for mml  
> and latex to work well together.
It's not that I'm not interested (!) but I'm already overloaded.

If it turns out that the best way to render LaTeX++ maths is by first  
converting our markup to MathML before rendering it from that form,  
then your working group could well be a critical link in the chain.
Hmmm, yes I see: 

1.  use LaTeXMathML to normnalise anyone's random LaTex-math mark-up to PMathML3
2.  use a polished up pmml2tex to produce mormalised LaTeX.

That would be a perfect Carlisle-style lash-up as a prototype LaTeX-math normaliser.  And from that one could produce easily eliminate the MathMl in the middle.

I'm sorry if I misconstrued your original message; to me it sounded  
like you "just" wanted a way to render MathML nicely to PDF. 
That is not entirely a misconstruation(!!).  To sell it to the tex-phobic one could advertise it that way.

If that's  
a goal, rather than a requirement for some new software, I find it  
hard to understand why bypassing ConTeXt is very productive. 
It may be an excellent solution but I find Context to be a single-user system (much like TeX was once) that is unstable and not open enough in a practical sense of being able to tamper with it (this view may be outdated but if it is then there is even less need for any LaTeX3 implementation).

I do  
believe there is scope for two major TeX macro packages (otherwise I  
wouldn't be here), but we don't do ourselves any favours by  
duplicating our friends' efforts.
whereas some of us (mostly in secret as the Great and Good get panicky if we tell them) are working towards the need for no-TeX-macros (ie no monolithic TeX, even embedded in luatex, just the good quality typesetting algorithms/models, and probably no TeX macros, which does not rule out the idea of using some powerful (TeX's is weak, according to Joachim Schrod)) macro language for part of the processing.

>> Basically, count me in, but I can't guarantee buckets of time.
Statements like that are really you telling us about your priorities/pleasures.
I hope the thesis is going well: priority or pleasure?

Looking at some other contributors to the discussion, what are there priorities, botn personal and for LaTeX(math in particular)?

Phew, too much typing for me ...!!

Byeee, chris 
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302)