On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 02:45 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > PR Stanley writes: > > > One of the reasons I'm interested in Wikipedia and Wikibook is because > > you're more likely to find Latex source code used for typesetting the > > maths. > > Latex is the one and only 100% tool right now. > > A lot of publishers use Latex but try to get anything from them in > > electronic form. > > I don't understand you. WHAT YOU WANT? > > 1. Many articles in Wikipedia typeset math formulae as *images*, you don't > really see the LaTeX sources. Some formulae are typed through plain HTML. > > 2. MOST journal publishers who recommend LaTeX give you the appropriate > .cls files. Kluwer, Journal of Functional Programming, etc. Sometimes > the attached manuals contain formulae. Whom did you ask, and what did > you want? > > 3. LaTeX is NOT the one and only one. Texts which should be printed, OK, > I format in LaTeX. Presentations on screen, my lectures, seminars, etc. > I format in MathML, and I show using Mozilla, etc., standard navigator. > Of course, making MathML by hand is like eating oysters with shells. > > I recommend then the script of Peter Jipsen > http://www1.chapman.edu/~jipsen/mathml/asciimath.html > which permits you to write your formulae intuitively, and fast. And > reasonably well, although the comparison with LaTeX would be difficult.
This is my problem with XML --- the syntax is so verbose, people are driven to *author* in anything but XML. TeX can be authored directly, by a real person, using a standard text editor. Infinitely superior to XML. jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
