Am Freitag, 13. Februar 2009 01:30 schrieben Sie:
On 12 Feb 2009, at 8:48 pm, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
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.
It's explicit enough in the original message: Use "a substantial chunk of MathML" in "a TeX-parseable syntax".
If you want to use a subset of TeX in Haddock comments, how would you render them on a webpage?
I didn't say "a subset of TeX" but a subset of >>MathML<<.
[explaination follows]
So you mean a language which * directly corresponds to a subset of MathML (and is therefore easily convertible into sensible MathML) * is at the same time valid TeX source which can be processed by TeX based on a few macro definitions (like \mrow) This sounds interesting, indeed. Best wishes, Wolfgang