Q about mathml || tex-native?

Q about mathml || tex-native?

[Alexander Lazic]

Hi,

i plan to write a math-booklet and have a question about the
math-modules in contex.

What is the preferd way to deal with math in contex?

MathML (xml-way) or
\*formula (tex-way, from my point of view)

I'am plan the outputs to pdfs.

There are some complex (integrals, complex numbers, ...), formulas and
electionical circuits figures.

I'am not sure what is the 'best' way ;-)

Please can you tell me your thoughts and opinions ;-)

Thanks && regards

Alex

Re: Q about mathml || tex-native?

[Aditya Mahajan]

<--- On Mar 17, Alexander Lazic wrote --->

> Hi,
>
> i plan to write a math-booklet and have a question about the
> math-modules in contex.
>
> What is the preferd way to deal with math in contex?
>
> MathML (xml-way) or
> \*formula (tex-way, from my point of view)

I do not know the pros and cons of both methods, but I personally find 
the mathML too verbose to type in. If you have an editor generating 
the mathml for you, it is a different matter. But if you prefer to 
type in your formulas,the tex way is much easier to input.

> I'am plan the outputs to pdfs.

Does that mean no (X)HTML? Then either method should serve you fine.

> There are some complex (integrals, complex numbers, ...), formulas and
> electionical circuits figures.

All of these are fairly easy with both methods. I use the regular 
context math and it works perfectly. There are a few gotchas, but 
there are easy workarounds. I have not used MathML, but from what I 
have seen in the context manuals, mathml is equally powerful.

> I'am not sure what is the 'best' way ;-)

It depends on what you are comfortable with. If you do not plan to 
have xml/xhtml output for a web browser, the both methods are equally 
good. If you want to present output in xhtml, then I guess that mathml 
will be better. Choose the one which `feels natural' to you.

HTH,
Aditya

-- 
Aditya Mahajan, EECS Systems, University of Michigan
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~adityam || Ph: 7342624008

Re: Q about mathml || tex-native?

[Hans Hagen]

Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> <--- On Mar 17, Alexander Lazic wrote --->
>
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> i plan to write a math-booklet and have a question about the
>> math-modules in contex.
>>
>> What is the preferd way to deal with math in contex?
>>
>> MathML (xml-way) or
>> \*formula (tex-way, from my point of view)
>>     
>
> I do not know the pros and cons of both methods, but I personally find 
> the mathML too verbose to type in. If you have an editor generating 
> the mathml for you, it is a different matter. But if you prefer to 
> type in your formulas,the tex way is much easier to input.
>   
you can also think of a mixture: content mathml for nicely structured 
formulas and a simple tex mode for inline math:

\defineXMLargument[tm]{\XMLtexmath}

\def\XMLtexmath#1{\bgroup\setnormalcatcodes\scantokens{\mathematics{#1}\ignorespaces}\egroup}

\startbuffer[test]
Sometimes it makes sense to use simple math, as in: <tm>e=mc^2</tm>.
\stopbuffer

\processXMLbuffer[test]

(i will provide a 'calcmath' filter once luatex is there)

Hans


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
              Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                             | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Q about mathml || tex-native?

[Alexander Lazic]

Hi,

On Mon 20.03.2006 11:40, Hans Hagen wrote:
>   
>you can also think of a mixture: content mathml for nicely structured
>formulas and a simple tex mode for inline math:

[nice testcode snipped]

>(i will provide a 'calcmath' filter once luatex is there)

Thanx for explanation ;-)

Greetings

Alex