Re: Non XML syntaxes
David Carlisle scripsit: > > 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) The design point for eqn was secretaries who had to type mathematics without knowing any mathematics. Eqn does have usability bugs: if you type (foo sub 2) it makes the ) part of the subscript, and you have to use braces or say (foo sub 2 ). But K C observed that although mathematicians liked the system (but did complain about the output), it was a complete success with secretaries. Nowadays, of course, we are all our own secretaries (and telephone operators, too, but that's a different tale). > 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). TeX is Turing-complete. I could imagine a version of eqn that looked for $$$ ... $$$ brackets and generated TeX, though. -- He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that jcowan@r... hardly nobody could get there and most of http://www.reutershealth.com the leaders would stay home and let him go http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to work and do things as he pleased. --Mencken, _Declaration of Independence_
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format