docno="lists-046-12151335" name="Nico Poppelier" email="nico@valacar.elsevier.nl" sent="Wed, 5 Jun 1996 16:38:21 +0200 (MET DST)" id="199606051438.QAA03524@thorin.elsevier.nl" * X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] subject="Response to Ron Whitney" To: w3c-math-erb@w3.org Ron Whitney writes: > undogmatic. I view their contributions as wholly positive. I'm > certain that Nico was *not* asserting otherwise, but I would Ron is right: I was not trying to assert otherwise, but I was asking a question (perhaps not neutrally enough :-), because I am only vaguely familiar with Mathematica. I asked the question because I wanted to know how feasible the mechanisms are that Bruce describes. If Mathematica already implements something similar, this is an argument in support of feasibility. It also might give an indication of how easy or difficult it is to come up with a real implementation. I agree with Ron that there is some politics involved as well. I think this group should make it absolutely clear that we will draw inspiration from ISO 12083 as much as we need, and that we will use the ISO TR 9573 entity sets, and also that WRI is not "running the show". As an aside: at the SGML Europe'96 conference Roy Pike attended the meeting of the committee responsible for ISO 12083, chaired by Eric van Herwijnen, and we got him to consent to the idea that there will always be users who need/insist on a P(resentation) (geometric, visual) notation. I said "he consented", but I should have said "he consented grudgingly and certainly not wholeheartedly". :-) Nico ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Nico A.F.M. Poppelier Elsevier Science, APD, ITD Email: n.poppelier@elsevier.nl. Molenwerf 1, 1014 AG Amsterdam Phone: +31-20-4853482. The Netherlands Fax: +31-20-4853706. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And maybe some compromises.