Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks157k at acme.softbase.org
Thu Feb 12 02:48:14 EST 2009

Am Mittwoch, 11. Februar 2009 22:38 schrieben Sie:
> On 12 Feb 2009, at 1:40 am, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 11. Februar 2009 00:46 schrieben Sie:
> >> I suppose I should point out what seems obvious to me, which is
> >> that one
> >> could embed a substantial chunk of MathML (possibly all of it) in
> >> TeX. I
> >> mean, give it a TeX-parseable syntax.
> >
> > You can convert MathML into TeX but not the other way round. How
> > would you
> > translate $a \odot b \otimes c$? It depends on the precedence of the
> > operators.
>
> And the point of that is?  What I suggested is the way around that
> works.  And the point of my suggestion was that one could have
> something that could be embedded directly in a (La)TeX document
> *or* processed by Haddock: no changes when copying from one
> document to another means fewer new mistakes.

I don’t understand this. The way which works is conversion from MathML to TeX.
So your suggestion would be to use MathML as the source language. But this is
obviously not what you suggest. I’m confused.

If you want to use a subset of TeX in Haddock comments, how would you render
them on a webpage?

Best wishes,
Wolfgang