From: Dmitry Turin (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Sep 30 2007 - 02:18:26 CST
AF> Actually, the main point of these is to recommend which strings of
AF> symbols to use to express a particular mathematical semantics.
+1 for 'particular'
AF> That makes it feasible to render (simple) formulae directly from plain text.
+1 for 'simple'
AF> The linear format introduces several conventions that handle things like
AF> scoping, super and subscripting in a way that keeps the raw text very
AF> close to the plain text
What is the difference between "raw text" and "plain text" ?
AF> Similar conventions are used in other plain text context, from using
AF> punctuation for emoticons to the use of paired * _ or / to indicate
AF> styled text.
What is the "emoticons" ?
>>> Plain text is used in _all_ type of documents
>>> (biologistic one, economistic one, texts of schoolchildren),
>>> and manufactorers of software must be prevented from embeding of
>>> _particular_ markup language into all system.
>> So you want to force software developers to use a plain text encoding
>> standard for *layout* to prevent them from using markup standards?
>> This doesn't seem to me to be a good idea.
AF> Actually, there's nothing inherently wrong if certain software
AF> interprets such near-plain text conventions.
AF> If text display software wants to autorecognize math expressions and display
AF> them according to the linear format, that would be just fine - as long
AF> as it's optional
It can be optional for signs of root and fraction,
but i must be obligatory for signs of indexes (top and bottom),
limits (top and bottom), and for sign 'return', which returns
to previous level in complex index-limit's construction.
Unicode2 (2.1.1) http://unicode2.chat.ru
HTML6 (6.4.2) http://html60.chat.ru
SQL4 (4.4.0) http://sql40.chat.ru
Computer2 (2.0.3) http://computer20.chat.ru
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 01 2007 - 00:29:11 CST