[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Non XML syntaxes

• To: jcowan@r...
• Subject: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:33:00 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200210081536.LAA01495@m...> (message fromJohn Cowan on Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:23:42 -0400 (EDT))
• References: <200210081536.LAA01495@m...>

> It's a lot easier to use
> eqn than TeX to express mathematical text, 

Not sure about that really (certainly TeX is vastly more popular with
mathematicians than eqn) but maybe that's as much to do with the output
as the input). However your main point is still valid, and both eqn
and TeX are a lot easier to author by hand than MathML (although pretty
much impossible to process by anything other than the specified
application).

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Non XML syntaxes
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: Non XML syntaxes
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Non XML syntaxes
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• Next by Date: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Previous by thread: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• Next by thread: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread