<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Olivier Nicole wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:187ac70e-6867-8f41-b5f0-f503ab373f16@chnik.fr">[...] I
simply used this as an argument to say that it stands to reason
that the implementation of MathJax must be different from that of
TeX, since it has to support a different set of primitive
constructs.<br>
</blockquote>
I respectfully disagree. Which is not to suggest that I believe
that the implementation of MathJax is necessarily the same as that
of TeX (I have no idea whether it is or not), merely that I
challenge the assertions on which I believe your argument to is
based. <br>
<br>
For a start, why do you assert that "[MathJax] has to support a
different set of primitive constructs" ? Why must they be <i>primitive</i>
constructs ? If MathJax were/is the same as that of TeX, then those
constructs could be handled by a format file.<br>
<br>
As to "the MathML specification describes a few mathematical
elements that, in (La)TeX, would require to use a dedicated
package", there would be no requirement for "a dedicated package" at
all — a competent (La)TeX programmer could write code to handle
those elements without needing any extra package(s).<br>
<br>
The defence rests.<br>
-- <br>
<i>Philip Taylor</i><br>
</body>
</html>