Pierre Girard wrote:
I'm going to continue lobbying the LoC to allow some kind of additional markup in title fields, but it may be difficult because it can be a can-of-worms (e.g. why not just allow MathML?).
My question is why not support mathml instead of just hand selecting some of the features? I understand that it will be harder for you to implement but at least that's a well known standard albeit not widely spread.
You see, my problem is that where i work professors write papers that sometimes contains some mathematics in the title. Usually nothing too fancy, for instance (in latex) $H_\infty$. However in the abstracts we have some more complicated math in there.
Could you please take that into consideration?
Yes, I understand that. It's just that it's hard to convince, for example, the Library of Congress to support MathML markup in their schema, and I'm not interested in writing a new one except as a very last resort.
I have some ideas about how to address this, but I'm just emphasizing that:
a) it's not an easy problem to solve, particularly if you care about interoperability
b) I care a lot about interoperability
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
