On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 11:21:15AM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 01:56:05AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > LaTeX is not very practical to write program documentation. Texinfo is
> > not so good at math and bibliography. However, when you need both, for
> > instance when you write a manual for a program dealing with mathematics,
> > I find Texinfo with tex4ht or latex2html and now mathjax to be better
> > compromise than LaTeX as LaTeX is very poor for program documentation.
> > The html obtained, for instance is much more suitable when going through
> > Texinfo.
>
> Does tex4ht ever produce acceptible output? I tried it with the
> simple input
Actually, it seems that I was wrong, the tex4ht output for @math, using
httexi has always been weird. I probably misremembered. The output for
@tex is good, though. And if @math{} contains only TeX it could be made
better by using httex and not httexi.
--
Pat
