On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 11:36:16AM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > But now that we are at it, do you know if there are any other good free
> > (GPL, BSD, whatever) tools for authoring and rendering MathML besides Amaya,
> > PassiveTeX and a few other?
>
> Not really. However, Amaya uses ThotLib de
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 03:18:38PM +0200, Peter Ring wrote:
> Sorry, not enough coffee.
:)
> But now that we are at it, do you know if there are any other good free
> (GPL, BSD, whatever) tools for authoring and rendering MathML besides Amaya,
> PassiveTeX and a few other?
Not really. However
/ Phillip Shelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| I then go and make a text file with the PCDATA I want to
| see, and use the and import a non-graphic
| anyway. Much less hassle for me if I could just use PCDATA in an
| informalequation.
Yeah, we'll that's a loophole :-)
Phillip Shelton wrote:
> Any hope that DocBook would support MathML native?
There is MathML customization for DocBook (see
www.oasis-open.org/docbook/). With it you can use MathML inside of
equation and inlineequation. However typing MathML without any
supporting tools is very sluggish.
---
Message-
From: Yann Dirson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:38 AM
To: Phillip Shelton
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: FW: DOCBOOK: Equations.
> Amaya (http://www.w3.org/Amaya/) displays (some) MathML, is free
> (like in free beer), but not suit
> Amaya (http://www.w3.org/Amaya/) displays (some) MathML, is free
> (like in free beer), but not suited for general consumption.
Er, sorry to disturb this thread, but this is at least partly wrong.
Amaya is free "like in free speech" as well as "like in free beer",
and this is probably the most
At Norms' request, I entered an RFE to make "text" equations possible,
something that, oddly enough had never occurred to me, despite being
frustrated over this issue for several years now.
At 01.10.22 10:49 +1000, Phillip Shelton wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > / Phillip Shelton <[EM
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2001 1:16
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Antwort: RE: FW: DOCBOOK: Equations.
>> I'm at least generally aware of MathML. But it's not part of
>> the DocBook core, and I'd like support for
> -Original Message-
> You're not supposed to put generated files under revision control; just
the
> source and the script (or whatever) that generates the files.
Um, I wasn't. Each equation at present needs its own source. Each source is
only 16-140 char's long.
Here are my first two e
sed to cache rendering of the
math data.
Kind regards
Peter Ring
-Original Message-
From: Phillip Shelton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 2:30 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: FW: DOCBOOK: Equations.
> -Original Message-
> It&#
> -Original Message-
> / Phillip Shelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> | I suppose I want to know Why this restriction.
>
> With respect to equations:
>
> 1. Equation and InformalEquation only contain graphics. That's because
>there's no markup for the equation content in D
-Original Message-
> From: M. Wroth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 3:25 PM
> To: Roman Suzi
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FW: DOCBOOK: Equations.
>
>
> I'm at least generally aware of MathML. But it's not part of
&
First, thankyou Mark, for stating the RFE much better then I would have.
> -Original Message-
> But I could live with support for inline and displayed
> equations, which
> contain PCDATA (which gets me the ISO math symbols), and sub- and
> superscripts. If I got to wish for more, I'd
With regard to my comments on including math markup in the core DocBook
At 03:55 PM 10/19/01 +0200, Peter Ring wrote:
>Could you be more specific?
>
>Which math notations should be part of the core?
>
>What processing should be expected?
MathML would be fine, based on my limited experience with
Suzi
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: DOCBOOK: Equations.
I'm at least generally aware of MathML. But it's not part of the DocBook
core, and I'd like support for equations to be part of the core, not an
extension.
I seem to be a minority opinion, though :-)
At 05:17 PM 10/19/0
/ Roman Suzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| There is MathML for that. probably it could be somehow
| integrated with DocBook?
Already done, http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/mathml/
Be seeing you,
nor
/ "M. Wroth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| While I'd rather see some form of math markup become part of the
| DocBook core, allowing such equations as can be expressed in "text"
| would be useful to me. (Since you asked :-)
File an RFE please, http://sourceforge.net/projects/docbook/
I'm at least generally aware of MathML. But it's not part of the DocBook
core, and I'd like support for equations to be part of the core, not an
extension.
I seem to be a minority opinion, though :-)
At 05:17 PM 10/19/01 +0400, Roman Suzi wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, M. Wroth wrote:
>
> > >Wi
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, M. Wroth wrote:
> >With respect to equations:
> >
> >1. Equation and InformalEquation only contain graphics. That's because
> >there's no markup for the equation content in DocBook. It could be
> >argued that some equations would be fine in ASCII and we should have
>
At 07:23 AM 10/19/01 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
>/ Phillip Shelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
>| I suppose I want to know Why this restriction.
>
>With respect to equations:
>
>1. Equation and InformalEquation only contain graphics. That's because
>there's no markup for the equation
/ Phillip Shelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| I suppose I want to know Why this restriction.
With respect to equations:
1. Equation and InformalEquation only contain graphics. That's because
there's no markup for the equation content in DocBook. It could be
argued that some equ
21 matches
Mail list logo
