On 12/11/2009, at 12:03 AM, Chris Rowley wrote:
>>> (oh, ASAP I guess) but considering Hans has had MathML2 rendering
>>> in ConTeXt
> That seems to be totally irrelevant to a LATEX list.
Weren't you the one that said LaTeX's best chance of survival was by
leveraging ConTeXt MkIV as a backend? (Excuse the error if I'm wrong;
I'm still sleep deprived.)
> Also, your clear lack of interest is odd given all the time you have
> put into the basic stuff on LaTeX-math for XeTeX/Unicode that I
> thought the group could combine with David's stuff.
When I wrote my message I was unaware of the (seemingly otherwise
invisible?) pmml2tex. This changes things considerably, since it means
no-one will have to parse XML in LaTeX.
> Finally, for PR reasons if nothing else, it would be useful for mml
> and latex to work well together.
It's not that I'm not interested (!) but I'm already overloaded. If it
turns out that the best way to render LaTeX++ maths is by first
converting our markup to MathML before rendering it from that form,
then your working group could well be a critical link in the chain.
I'm sorry if I misconstrued your original message; to me it sounded
like you "just" wanted a way to render MathML nicely to PDF. If that's
a goal, rather than a requirement for some new software, I find it
hard to understand why bypassing ConTeXt is very productive. I do
believe there is scope for two major TeX macro packages (otherwise I
wouldn't be here), but we don't do ourselves any favours by
duplicating our friends' efforts.
Basically, count me in, but I can't guarantee buckets of time.