Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:58:30 +0200
<[log in to unmask]
> (Timothy Murphy's
message of "Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:25:55 +0100")
Aachen University of Technology (RWTH)
Timothy Murphy <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> On Friday 18 July 2003 08:45, Torsten Bronger wrote:
>> My dream is to just insert the UTF-8 sequence of 0x107 and it
>> works. Of course, the "cacute" doesn't make sense in math mode, and
>> therefore LaTeX doesn't support such things, however I cannot tell
>> XML authors which characters they are allowed to type. Even the
>> standard latin1 inputenc option isn't math-proof.
> I don't know much about XML,
> but this seems to me completely contrary to its philosophy.
> Surely XML markup is _meant_ to reflect the meaning of the content
> rather than just what you want printed.
> I would have thought TeX was much better suited to your needs in
> this case.
> As I see it, Knuth put common-sense above theoretical exactitude,
> while XML takes the opposite point of view. as MathML illustrates.
I think it's rather some sort of legacy from old 7-bit times.
I'm not very fond of MathML either. However, I also said that the
"XML file format ... must provide a way to mark math areas". MathML
does it, and it should be enough. In LaTeX, it isn't for
non-trivial characters: You have to take care of how a certain
character must be written in the respective mode.
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus