Hi Chris,

You write in response to me:

>
> An update:
>
> I believe the answer to the first is "yes".  For one thing, I think the
> LaTeX being submitted to arXiv (arxiv.org) is improving.  I commonly look
> at arXiv source and try to run it through tex4ht toward html+mathml with
> mathjax.  I see success there as a sign of well-structured LaTeX.  But I've
> not made a systematic investigation on this point.
>
>
> But Bruce and Gabor have.  They have worked on the whole arXiv (to
> produce, in particular, very information-rich MathML) as part of the
> semantic maths project.  So they can probably give you lots of useful data
> on this and on many other subjects of interest to LATEX-L discussions.
>

Yes.  It would be nice to hear something from them.  So, for example, I
just took a look there (http://arxmliv.kwarc.info/) and see that the
success rate for conversion from LaTeX to XML is 60.74%.  Given what we
know about the overall quality of extant LaTeX markup, that's quite
impressive.

I understand this to be the success rate for latexml's first conversion
layer rather than for throughput to HTML with math.  (Bruce?)

One reason why the two might be different has to do with things like
xymatrix. It is unclear (at least to me) what should become of xy-family
things in HTML with math.

           -- Bill

-- 
William F Hammond
Email: [log in to unmask]
https://www.facebook.com/william.f.hammond
http://www.albany.edu/~hammond/