Message-ID:  <199811111651.LAA10405@hilbert.math.albany.edu>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1998 11:51:14 -0500
From: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@CSC.ALBANY.EDU>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: XML (was quotes, a very long time ago)
Status: R

David --

(Private)  I know very few mathematicians who have thought about
it who "trust" MathML.  For myself I will be prepared to live
with it, but I doubt that it achieves what it claims beyond the
level of engineering mathematics.

Have you seen my draft on notation?  He may have circulated it to the
cathedral chapter.  But nobody replied, so I don't know.  If that body
feels that it lacks the expertise, it should get help.  The draft may
be found at

       http://www.albany.edu/~hammond/gellmu/notation.

It is plain text and it is *very* drafty.  (I think that I showed it
to Miner.)

Are you familiar with Richard Fateman's experiment with a
table of integrals?

Oh!  Eitan Gurari's stuff with Sebastian brings up the question
whether the MathML Cathedral Chapter understands that DVI, like the
new scalable vector graphics (SVG) proposal at W3C, is XML.

And did Adobe understand this when they made PDF?  Hmmm...

DVI processors usually seek, as I recall.  (But probably not Geoffrey
Tobin's "dv2dt".)  That means that DVI is not browser ready.  Still at
an authoring site you could upgrade it (analogous to Eitan Gurari's
game, but with regular special-free DVI) and hope to make browser
fodder, couldn't one?  I would not be a good quick judge of whether it
is practical; I'm just not close enough to DVI.

                                  -- Bill