Gentle persons: As I understand it, the problem with the use of latexmath is that it renders beautifully in the pdf format and is useless in the html format of the 2.5 docs. Is that a fair read of the problem?
There are currently just 47 instances of the 'latexmath:[' tag in the English-source txt files and roughly the same in each of the French-, German-, and Spanish-source txt files. Almost all of the latexmath markup in our docs describes really trivial mathematical expressions. I strongly endorse what Francis Tisserant has been doing as he edits the French-source txt files. Given the current state of affairs with html, pdf, and our production tools, I believe representing as many expressions as possible in text form is the best, not to mention the most expedient, solution. The current best practice in the on-line mathematics community is to take this approach for simple expressions and to render really complicated expressions to separate image files in a pre-flight process. There are plenty of websites and blogs devoted to this problem and my conclusion is that the alternatives are not very palatable especially in our production of both html and pdf from one source. Recommendation: apply Francis' approach in the other language docs as well. Look into prettying up the results, perhaps, for example with appropriate use of _italics_ and embedding special characters if possible. Only after all the expressions have been rendered in both html and pdf should we look at whether some of them justify the image-file approach. Regards, Kent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
