David Carlisle skrev: > >> On 11/11/2009, at 2:17 AM, Chris Rowley wrote: >> >>> (Trying to get a team going to implement (AFAP) Presentation >>> MathML3 via LaTeX -- Standard or expl3 or anything!! -- to pdf >>> for screen and paper rendering.) I'm glad I don't have to do that. MathML is scary (and I mean that as a programmer, not as an author; all those attributes and stuff) ... >> I don't know what AFAP means (oh, ASAP I guess) but considering Hans >> has had MathML2 rendering in ConTeXt for years now I figure he'd >> probably have MML3 done before we decide what prefix to give our >> internal variables in the module. Or do you need a LaTeX intermediary >> for some other reason as well? > > > hmm, but perhaps some of us have a head start:-) see 2nd column of > > http://www.w3.org/Math/testsuite/results/tests.html#results (Wow! Googling for pmml2tex finds that page *only*.) I'm a bit curious, though: The goals for pmml2tex is stated as "rendering via conversion via OpenMath to Presentation mathml and TeX". Having dabbled a bit with implementing OpenMath->LaTeX conversion myself last year (on the reasoning that it'll be faster in the long run than hand-converting a large collection of computer-derived formulae; in order to write a paper reporting the results, they somehow need to be turned into LaTeX), I did consider going via MathML, but eventually decided not to; MathML felt too messy to be a convenient intermediate format. (Still, I'll probably also want to do OM->PMML at some point in the future.) So is PMML in your mind an optimal intermediate when going OM->TeX, or is it more that you get it for free from composing OM->PMML and PMML->TeX conversions? (I should perhaps add that I considered sensible formatting of the generated LaTeX code to be important; since it's going into a document that I'll do editing of, I don't want it to be a compact block of commands without any hint of the logical structure of the formula.) Lars Hellström