Re: embedded components and equations

[Jon K Hellan <hellan acm org>]

Paul Topping <PaulT@mathtype.com> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> First, I'm new to GNOME and this list, so if I use the wrong terminology or
> commit some other sort of faux pas, cut me a little slack please.
> 
> I'm with Design Science, the makers of MathType and the Equation Editor that
> comes with Microsoft Office, so my interest is the editing of equations in
> documents. I don't know what my eventual involvement with GNOME will be but
> I am at least interested in making sure that some of the pitfalls and
> problems that occur in this area are avoided.
> 
> I've browsed the GNOME site and equation editing within documents is
> mentioned a few times in connection with component development but I
> couldn't find evidence of anyone doing anything about it specifically. If I
> missed it, someone please point me in the right direction. Also, if my
> subject should be posted to a different list, let me know.

Excellent. If there is any Gnome activity on this, it would be in the
Abiword word processor (www.abiword.org). Besides, I do know that lyx
(www.lyx.org) has an equation editor. There are versions of lyx for
the gtk and qt toolkits. lyx may have some sort of component
architecture, but I know nothing about it, and it isn't bonobo!.

> It seems to me that the problems with creating an equation editor component
> are in the richness (or lack thereof) of the interface between it and the
> document that contains it. The simple model is one where the document asks
> the equation component "how big are you?" and the component replies with a
> width and height in a suitable coordinate system. The document editor use
> this info as input to the page layout process and, eventually, decides where
> the equation component should be put. Later, the document editor will ask
> the component to display itself within its rectangle using a canvas given to
> it.

You know much more about this than I do!
 
> To make a practical equation editor component takes a much richer interface
> than this. Before I expand on this at greater length, I want to be sure I'm
> saying it in the right place, it hasn't already been dealt with, and it is
> generally welcome. If any of these is missing, I'll slink off and never be
> heard from again.

Please stay around!

Regards

Jon Kåre