Hi Lex: On Jun 29, 8:04 pm, Lex Trotman <[email protected]> wrote:
> By the way, why are we printing to PDF from HTML when you have just > went to a lot of trouble to make a tool chain to get PDF from asciidoc > :-S ? Well, I agree. It seems as though I am working at cross purposes by advocating using a browser to print PDF. The only point is that this might be adequate for some users as a quick way to get a PDF file that looks roughly like the HTML version if preserving links are not an issue. So I mentioned it merely for the sake of completeness and I am not recommending it in general. There is one point that is related, and that has to to with how fussy dblatex is when it comes to LaTeX math expressions. MathJax seems to be able to render most of the main highway LaTeX math without a hiccup as far as I can see, and it is able to use the delimiters as documented with no problem. I would suggest to anyone that plans to try to use the same AsciiDoc source text file to produce both (X)HTML and PDF (using dblatex) to stick to the delimiters and the AsciiDoc latex macro and block passthrough syntax documented in the PDF file by Stuart for including LaTeX math for publication as PDF using the a2x(1) command. MathJax should handle $ ... $ for inline LaTeX math expressions (with the proper configuration for this delimiter) and \ [ ... \] (a default) for displayed LaTeX math expressions using AsciiDoc inline macros and block passthroughs respectively. I think this will prevent some of the problems I have seen with dblatex for processing LaTeX math expressions. I think that it may be the case that $$ ... $$ and \( ... \) delimiters may be causing some issues with dblatex depending on the context, but not MathJax which is happy with any of these. I am not sure exactly since I have not had time to ferret this out, but I do know that MathJax will render some LaTeX math expressions that dblatex chokes on using the same AsciiDoc source text file and I am not sure why. So if this happens and you don't want to be dead before you can figure out why you can't get get a PDF copy to render using dblatex, then this may be what you go to as a backup. > > Your missing math example looks rather like you don't have a font that > Firefox wants, but I think it is probably more about bugs you get > living on the bleeding edge like you are. > > I guess you always wanted to be a test pilot :-) I think you are spot on about this. If you like running around with your hair on fire you have to expect to get burned occasionally. > > My way of avoiding Cocknonical's stupid UI is to use Linux Mint which > bases itself on Ubuntu but has a sensible desktop. I used to use Xubuntu, but I got frustrated whenever I tried to make heads or tails of how to make even simple changes to a menu for example, so I switched to Ubuntu and now I have walked into this desktop buzzsaw. I have a Lubuntu VirtualBox guest VM that uses LXDE and I like that system a lot. However, in all fairness, I upgraded other computers to 11.04 without having these issues, so I think my laptop probably is a victim of the side effects of too many upgrades on top of each other. > > Ah yes I've forgotten to complain about your unlimited width text > documents despite it being my current campaign. > > Based on readability studies the W3C recommends text streams be > limited to a maximum of about 80 characters which is 35-40 ems. So > add > > :max-width: 40em > > at the top of your asciidoc and it will set the maximum for HTML. > > And if I catch you fixing the font sizes or setting the width to > pixels or inches or mm I'll have you boiled in oil and your bleached > bones left out for the Coyotes to nibble. :-( > Ouch! Okay! I learned something new (as always) and now you feel better for having gained a convert and pushing back the frontiers of ignorance even if it is only one person at a time. em's the word from now on from me :) > Literals you are going to have to manually limit since "literal" tells > the tools to not do anything with the contents. I'll have to look at the HTML source to see how it classes the tags for the literal content. It may be that it is possible for CSS to deal with this. Or the other possibility is that I don't know what I am talking about here, which happens all too frequently I am afraid. But, even a blind acorn finds a squirrel once in a while. > > I have already exhausted all my excess brain cells figuring out how to > > get this all to work with what has been documented so far. A follow-up > > adventure into CSS Land for me is uncharted territory. Any CSS experts > > out there? > > Not needed, see above, let me reiterate width should be limited for > both screen and paper. Ditto. em's the word. I'm on board. I'm allergic to boiling oil. It makes my skin slough off. Thanks much. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
