## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 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 >>]

```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.

>>
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.