Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:52:36 +0100
Michael John Downes writes:
> Only if you believe that element numbers are not data. It is not SGML
> that dictates the numbers cannot be data, it is your DTD. There seems to
> true in many cases, but the kind of material in which it is true least
> often is mathematical material, which happens to be the stuff that my
> employer specializes in---hence my colored view of the situation.
fair point. but i would argue you are an unusual situation, and the
SGML world seems to be against you
> In any case if explicit numbers were added to LaTeX 3 documents I don't
> see that it would impair your current approach any. Just have your
if you have a clear notation, yes, its true we can all win.
> Actually a full number spec should include both value and formatting,
> separated, for maximum flexibility. I have some prototypes lying around
i should have guessed
> ---A mathematician who chooses to number list items with Greek
> letters will find a change to standard numbering by the publisher
> unpalatable; it destroys the nuances of the original.
in the fascist world I live in, the author would not _have_ this
freedom, they get lists or no lists....
> ---In a mathematical document where \bullet or \square is used as a math
> symbol the author will naturally tend to shun the use of the same symbol
> for itemized lists. Putting the document through a publishing process
> that ignores this constraint might be a significant disservice to
i'd call that journal style. a mathematical publication might well
implement <itemize> with symbols unlikely to get confused with typical