Paragraph about LaTeX editor
(July, 1999) It appears that many people are hoping that XML will serve as a common encoding for mathematics, along with everything else. OpenMath continues to meet. math.w3.org continues to discuss. We learn that the mathlab official reason that UMI doesn't use TeX is that it is not Y2K compliant (huh?).
Here's the current relationship between XML, MathML, OM: (many thanks for David Carlisle of NAG for this:)
OM has an abstract model of the tree representing the mathematical object, and then various encodings of that abstract tree. Currently two encodings are supported, a `binary' one and an XML one. (Previously, there were lisp-ish and SGML encodings, but LaTeX editor they have been dropped.)
The XML encoding is the most visible and important encoding, it allows OM objects to live inside the ever growing world of XML documents. There is a certain amount of tension as to how many `XML features' one should allow, that is, whether it is enough to ensure that the XML encoding of OM is in fact valid XML (which it is) or whether you should mandate that every OM application needs to be a full XML application or whether it only needs understand the subset of XML used in the XML encoding of OpenMath.
Chemical equation software