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
well, true

 > 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.

 <section3><suggested-rendition>1.2.5</suggested-rendition>
  <st>The results<st>
 ..
 </section3>

 > 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
content

Sebastian