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