Re: [xml] What is the best way to implement semantics?

[Bruce R Miller <bruce miller nist gov>]

John J. Boyer wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> On Wed, 26 May 2004, Bruce Miller wrote:
>
> ....
>
> > Anyway, a quick google suggests that Daisy is designed exactly for this,
> > but I'm not sure what implementing Docbook directly buys you.
> > Docbook is a good model for some kinds of documents but a bad match to others,
> > so you'd end up with a questionable translation to Docbook.
> > Why not transform all document types, including Docbook, to Daisy and working
> > with that?
>
>
> I understand that Daisy does not yet support math. Are there other xml 
> formats than docbook that are widely used for technical material?

Does docbook now (directly) support Math?
The usual route seems to be to create a hybrid dtd/scheme using
namespaces or whatever in order to include MathML, such as with
XHTML+MathML.

I'm not at all familiar with Daisy, so I don't know what they do for math.
I would think that there would be big, interesting issues with translating
MathML (or any other variant) into something useful for a braille interface.
It would probably be worth doing something modular that can be used from
within other document types that might also include MathML.

> ?Thanks,
> John
>
>
> >


--
--
bruce miller nist gov
http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/