Robin Fairbains writes: > let's not lose sight of what we're discussing, though: we need to know > if the xml-related efforts can provide us with models of what we want > to do within latex, or whether it's too restrictive for the full > generality of what latex does for people today. My guess is that most of LaTeX admits rational translations to XML but not fully regular ones, a metaphorical illusion to some pre-20th century mathematics that is not always well understood. For example, consider the problem of birationally mapping P^2 ---> P^1 X P^1 (where you know what P^N = N-dimensional projective space is, right?) I claim that we need to follow something like this procedure with markup. I do not have a proof. But I think that with successive approximations one will find that the LaTeX we know and love is a complicated categorical limit of XML's. -- Bill