References: <199812092035.VAA16014@na6.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de>
            <13938.39518.68424.927988@fell.open.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID:  <19981212225407.A29563@maths.tcd.ie>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <13938.39518.68424.927988@fell.open.ac.uk>; from Chris Rowley on
              Sat, Dec 12, 1998 at 06:05:25PM +0100
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:54:07 +0000
From: Timothy Murphy <tim@MATHS.TCD.IE>
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: portable LaTeX
Status: R

On Sat, Dec 12, 1998 at 06:05:25PM +0100, Chris Rowley wrote:

There is a fundamental question about MathML/XML/OpenMath vs TeX/LaTeX
which does not seem to me to have been answered here.

As I understand it, *ML _parses_ (or tries to parse) maths,
while Knuth in his wisdom decided this was impractical.
For example, if I write $AB = CD$
this might refer to variables AB,CD (perhaps line segments)
or it might refer to products of 4 variables A,B,C,D;
I don't have to say in TeX/LaTeX.
Would I have to say in *ML?
Would I perhaps have to put in an \invisibletimes between A and B?

The question is, then:
is it possible to parse mathematics,
and if so, is it wise to try?

[It may be impossible,
because it may be that mathematicians
would refuse to be bound by any particular formal system put forward.]

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland