From: Colin J. Williams <cjw@sy...>  20041222 23:27:29

Beni Cherniavsky wrote: > Colin J. Williams wrote: > >> This seems a long way from what Alan Isaac proposed: >> http://www1.chapman.edu/~jipsen/mathml/asciimath.html >> >> The beauty of that proposal is that the markup intrudes very little >> into the maths. It is largely readable. > > There are problems with that syntax. I'm especially concerned with > the exreme futureincompatibility resulting from the fact that the > parser understands things like ``sqrtsqrtroot3x``. It's impossible to > extend such a language with new names and be sure it doesn't break > anything. But these are small solvable details. The concept is nice. > > The main reason that asciimath is not a satisfactory solution is that > it doesn't convert to beautiful LaTeX. With all due respect to the > WWW, if you can't beatifully typeset your math document (with LaTeX, > Lout, TeXmacs or something of that league), it's a waste of the math > ;). Of course, it shouldn't be hard to implement an asciimath>LaTeX > converter. > > Also, it's not extendable enough. It's great for 50% percent of one's > math need but what happens when you step outside that area? I > personnaly won't consider any solution that cannot express 99% percent > of all math people ever wrote. LaTeX is good enough. Lout should be > as well and it's nicer. And when I get the time, I will design my > own, better notation. > You make a good case against the adoption of asciimath as the ultimate approach for reST but I hope that someone will be able be able to come up with something like asciimath for short term use. Other approaches are to use the math capability of LyX in the DocFactory environment or to use LyX to generate Latex for the math component and then have a way to import this into reST. Colin W. 