David Carlisle skrev:
>> On 11/11/2009, at 2:17 AM, Chris Rowley wrote:
>>> (Trying to get a team going to implement (AFAP) Presentation
>>> MathML3 via LaTeX -- Standard or expl3 or anything!! -- to pdf
>>> for screen and paper rendering.)
I'm glad I don't have to do that. MathML is scary (and I mean that as a
programmer, not as an author; all those attributes and stuff) ...
>> I don't know what AFAP means (oh, ASAP I guess) but considering Hans
>> has had MathML2 rendering in ConTeXt for years now I figure he'd
>> probably have MML3 done before we decide what prefix to give our
>> internal variables in the module. Or do you need a LaTeX intermediary
>> for some other reason as well?
> hmm, but perhaps some of us have a head start:-) see 2nd column of
(Wow! Googling for pmml2tex finds that page *only*.)
I'm a bit curious, though: The goals for pmml2tex is stated as
"rendering via conversion via OpenMath to Presentation mathml and TeX".
Having dabbled a bit with implementing OpenMath->LaTeX conversion
myself last year (on the reasoning that it'll be faster in the long run
than hand-converting a large collection of computer-derived formulae;
in order to write a paper reporting the results, they somehow need to
be turned into LaTeX), I did consider going via MathML, but eventually
decided not to; MathML felt too messy to be a convenient intermediate
format. (Still, I'll probably also want to do OM->PMML at some point in
the future.) So is PMML in your mind an optimal intermediate when going
OM->TeX, or is it more that you get it for free from composing OM->PMML
and PMML->TeX conversions?
(I should perhaps add that I considered sensible formatting of the
generated LaTeX code to be important; since it's going into a document
that I'll do editing of, I don't want it to be a compact block of
commands without any hint of the logical structure of the formula.)