> Math in SGML has been so difficult for such a long time that I suspect
> you are one of a rare few who have legacy to worry about. As I recall,
possibly true.
> even Arbortext uses TeX as their "native" equation format. Once MathML
> becomes "real" it will probably be the dominant math DTD format. So the
> question becomes: are the others worth worrying about? Which one are you
dangerous attitude. you could apply it to tables as well, perhaps.
i really think its not safe to imply `we have sorted math;
we fully understand the structures, and we can put all their problems
into specialized addons which support The One True Math DTD' - it is
after quite contrary to the whole point of XML!
> using, and how large is your legacy base?
we use our own math DTD. hard to quantify the size of _math_ legacy,
but we do publish ?1400 scientific journals, of which nearly all are
now in SGML. i just ran an analysis on the working database at one
site (here in Oxford) and found about 24000 articles. if 25% use math
of some kind, its quite lot of < and > ...
> Could MathML meet your needs
> if there were an easy way to convert your data? If not, could it be
> fixed so that it did meet your needs?
probably. i havent done the detailed comparison. if Procrustean is the
order of the day, so be it. but a pity.
sebastian
DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist