> > > http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/raman/raman.html
> > not, of course, a full LaTeX interpreter
> Of course?? I defer to your detailed knowledge.
I don't think Raman ever claimed to be able to process arbitrary LaTeX;
yes, i talked to him about it in 1995
> I think you (and maybe they, but maybe not) misunderstand MathML. One
> of the many requirements for the success of MathML is considered (by
> its creators, amongst others) to be applications that can parse
> "TeX" and turn it into MathML.
really? you do surprise me. but thats for legacy purposes, or ongoing
input? Elsevier's latex2sgml will do the job just fine for you :-}
> It is in the people working on "these projects" that I find the most
> acceptance of LaTeX as being an essential part of the foreseeable
> future, not as something that will be swept away by *****ML or
> ****SSSSSL or any other new language. But they clearly give Sebastian
> a different impression.
probably because i am at a distance
but i just dont see what you imagine will happen for author X. do they
continue to author in LaTeX(3)? do they write SGML with embedded
constrained TeX for maths? how do you see X working in 3 years?
will she really _see_ TeX code?