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. -- Will