Chris Rowley writes:
 > Only in the "real soon now" world; I would say that, even with the
 > mega-bucks behind it, it still needs to be `real-world tested'.
an awful lot of people have their shirts on XML. its extremely widely
deployed. are you still waiting for Java to be real-world tested too?
some people are still waiting for everything except FORTRAN to be
real-world tested.

 > MathML and Sebastian's ideas of semantic mark-up cater very well for
 > the ideal of what Physicists and Computer Scientists (ie people who
 > designed Mathematica and Maple) think maths and maths notation is.
leaving me out of it, since I have no views, why is your math more
"real" than their math? your view comes over as awfully elitist and
snobbish :-}

 > level).  It's use of notation and its relation to the semantics are
 > very complex and probably;y not well-understood (they are more like
 > the relationship of natural language to the real world than like the
fine. you carry on with presentation mathml. no-one forces you to use
content mathml. i dont see any conflict

 > of these is the concept of <mrow>; this is a bad name for something
 > that Don called a `subformula' but which is very badly handled (both
 > syntactically and semantically in `standard TeX/LaTeX').  i shall
presumably you would agree, then,  that one possibility is a new LaTeX
(presentation) math markup learning the lessons of MathML?