Hi, For those interested in mathml/openmath ... i've added some support for openmath -> mathml conversion to the distribution (there is some stuff in the manual svn repos as well). I dunno how many of you actually have used openmath. Anyhow, it makes a nice demo of applying ctx job description files (used for automatic preprocessing of the xml files to content mathml and such). http://www.pragma-ade.com/general/manuals/mmoexamp.pdf Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:02:03 +0200, Hans Hagen
Hi,
For those interested in mathml/openmath ... i've added some support for openmath -> mathml conversion to the distribution (there is some stuff in the manual svn repos as well). I dunno how many of you actually have used openmath. Anyhow, it makes a nice demo of applying ctx job description files (used for automatic preprocessing of the xml files to content mathml and such).
Just a question about the ctx file as described in the doc: does it mean that every XML file is processed first by 'openmath' and then 'mathadore'? If so, why not using the xsltproc piping, avoiding the intermediate .om files? Regards, BG
nico wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:02:03 +0200, Hans Hagen
wrote: Hi,
For those interested in mathml/openmath ... i've added some support for openmath -> mathml conversion to the distribution (there is some stuff in the manual svn repos as well). I dunno how many of you actually have used openmath. Anyhow, it makes a nice demo of applying ctx job description files (used for automatic preprocessing of the xml files to content mathml and such).
Just a question about the ctx file as described in the doc: does it mean that every XML file is processed first by 'openmath' and then 'mathadore'?
If so, why not using the xsltproc piping, avoiding the intermediate .om files?
i'm not aware of piping ... how does the command look then? Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 19 May 2006 22:30:20 +0200, Hans Hagen
nico wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:02:03 +0200, Hans Hagen
wrote: Hi,
For those interested in mathml/openmath ... i've added some support for openmath -> mathml conversion to the distribution (there is some stuff in the manual svn repos as well). I dunno how many of you actually have used openmath. Anyhow, it makes a nice demo of applying ctx job description files (used for automatic preprocessing of the xml files to content mathml and such).
Just a question about the ctx file as described in the doc: does it mean that every XML file is processed first by 'openmath' and then 'mathadore'?
If so, why not using the xsltproc piping, avoiding the intermediate .om files?
i'm not aware of piping ... how does the command look then?
Provided that it's possible to pipe commands via ctx and/or texexec: xsltproc x-sm2om.xsl foo.xml | xsltproc -o foo.prep x-openmath.xsl - Regards, BG
nico wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006 22:30:20 +0200, Hans Hagen
wrote: nico wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:02:03 +0200, Hans Hagen
wrote: Hi,
For those interested in mathml/openmath ... i've added some support for openmath -> mathml conversion to the distribution (there is some stuff in the manual svn repos as well). I dunno how many of you actually have used openmath. Anyhow, it makes a nice demo of applying ctx job description files (used for automatic preprocessing of the xml files to content mathml and such).
Just a question about the ctx file as described in the doc: does it mean that every XML file is processed first by 'openmath' and then 'mathadore'?
If so, why not using the xsltproc piping, avoiding the intermediate .om files?
i'm not aware of piping ... how does the command look then?
Provided that it's possible to pipe commands via ctx and/or texexec:
xsltproc x-sm2om.xsl foo.xml | xsltproc -o foo.prep x-openmath.xsl -
ah, that way; i thought that you meant that xsltproc had a sequencing option the piping could indeed be a problem so it needs some testing Hans -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 19 May 2006 22:30:20 +0200, Hans Hagen
nico wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:02:03 +0200, Hans Hagen
wrote: Just a question about the ctx file as described in the doc: does it mean that every XML file is processed first by 'openmath' and then 'mathadore'?
If so, why not using the xsltproc piping, avoiding the intermediate .om files?
i'm not aware of piping ... how does the command look then?
Thinking a bit about this, you could avoid using two passes, by merging
both stylesheets. The only limitation is the need of the node-set EXSL
function (but available in xsltproc by default).
Simple example:
The main stylesheet (say, x-openmath.xsl):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
participants (2)
-
Hans Hagen
-
nico