From: Adam Twardoch (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 13 2006 - 09:38:40 CST
Hans Aberg wrote:
> I am only addressing it from the mathematicians point of view, were
> one wants something looking good enough for expressing the correct math.
I can fully understand that, but I’m sure you agree that there are
rarely any publications that contain *only* math.
> Actually, I came across the link. It seems to contain a good idea,
> namely, an language using ASCII for inputting Unicode.
I believe that the Office 2007 system also "understands" MathML. But the
input method of mathematics is an issue completely separate from issues
regarding fonts and rendering.
> For more complex math, one needs something corresponding to a macro
> system; perhaps some lambda calculus may be used here, as a macro
> system quickly becomes rather crippling. In addition, I think an
> analysis of the math (human, natural) language is needed, to one can
> have develop a semantically correct syntax. I do not pretend this will
> come easy. :-)
...I’m sure you mean "math (human, natural) language*s*". I believe an
analysis of just one language (for example, only Russian, or only Farsi,
or only English etc.) will not be greatly helpful.
-- Adam Twardoch | Language Typography Unicode Fonts OpenType | twardoch.com | silesian.com | fontlab.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 13 2006 - 09:39:23 CST