Chris Rowley writes: > I completely agree, and I do not think that editors would like it > either. So I hate to say it yet again, but research maths notation > *is* different from natural languages (and, he added hastily, even ... > I am not at all against XML/MathML as a useful lanaguage, but it must > fit into authoring/editing systems for all types of maths that fully > supports all the different types of people who need to use them. > my (admittedly naive) view is that presentation MathML is like plain TeX maths, ie it provides building blocks for putting practically any math on the page. real users put a layer on top (macros), to let them write commands which have semantic meaning for them. if you accept this, then the XML/MathML world is no different. make up a new language, using XML syntax, to say whatever you want <foo n="3">x<bar>y</bar></foo> (forget the verbose syntax for now), and then provide the XSL transformation script which maps that to presentational MathML. within your own research group, write software which groks <foo> directly. you lose the tight coupling of markup and presentation that TeX provides, but you gain a language considerably more amenable to computer processing, a cleaner mapping layer, and access to the software the rest of the world will be using. your friend TeX will still be there underneath, formatting away for you. as i say, i may be being naive, but i think the Third Way has advantages, and i dont see how it really constrains Chris' research maths sebastian