Michael John Downes writes: > Only if you believe that element numbers are not data. It is not SGML > that dictates the numbers cannot be data, it is your DTD. There seems to well, true > true in many cases, but the kind of material in which it is true least > often is mathematical material, which happens to be the stuff that my > employer specializes in---hence my colored view of the situation. fair point. but i would argue you are an unusual situation, and the SGML world seems to be against you > In any case if explicit numbers were added to LaTeX 3 documents I don't > see that it would impair your current approach any. Just have your if you have a clear notation, yes, its true we can all win. <section3><suggested-rendition>1.2.5</suggested-rendition> <st>The results<st> .. </section3> > Actually a full number spec should include both value and formatting, > separated, for maximum flexibility. I have some prototypes lying around i should have guessed > ---A mathematician who chooses to number list items with Greek > letters will find a change to standard numbering by the publisher > unpalatable; it destroys the nuances of the original. in the fascist world I live in, the author would not _have_ this freedom, they get lists or no lists.... > ---In a mathematical document where \bullet or \square is used as a math > symbol the author will naturally tend to shun the use of the same symbol > for itemized lists. Putting the document through a publishing process > that ignores this constraint might be a significant disservice to i'd call that journal style. a mathematical publication might well implement <itemize> with symbols unlikely to get confused with typical content Sebastian