Chris Rowley writes:
 > I completely agree, and I do not think that editors would like it
 > either.  So I hate to say it yet again, but research maths notation
 > *is* different from natural languages (and, he added hastily, even
...
 > I am not at all against XML/MathML as a useful lanaguage, but it must
 > fit into authoring/editing systems for all types of maths that fully
 > supports all the different types of people who need to use them.
 >

my (admittedly naive) view is that presentation MathML is like plain
TeX maths, ie it provides building blocks for putting practically any
math on the page. real users put a layer on top (macros), to let them
write commands which have semantic meaning for them.

if you accept this, then the XML/MathML world is no different. make up
a new language, using XML syntax, to say whatever you want
  <foo n="3">x<bar>y</bar></foo>
(forget the verbose syntax for now), and then provide the XSL
transformation script which maps that to presentational MathML. within
your own research group, write software which groks <foo> directly.

you lose the tight coupling of markup and presentation that TeX
provides, but you gain a language considerably more amenable to
computer processing, a cleaner mapping layer, and access to the
software the rest of the world will be using. your friend TeX will
still be there underneath, formatting away for you.

as i say, i may be being naive, but i think the Third Way has
advantages, and i dont see how it really constrains Chris' research
maths

sebastian