On 10/06/2014 09:28 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <[email protected]> writes:
It does MathML I think, which is then rendered client side. Or you could
drop math-mode straight through and render client side with mathjax.
Well, somehow png files are being produced for some math, which is a failure.
Yeah, you have to tell it to do mathml. The problem is that older
versions of the browsers don't render mathml, and image rendering was
the only option.
Well, then someone is going to have to tell people how to do this. What I saw
for htlatex was that it just did the right thing.
I don't know what the way to do this right would be, I just know that the
There are many cases where line breaks and indentation are important for
understanding. Getting this sort of presentation right in latex is a pain for
starters, but when it has been done, having the htlatex toolchain mess it up
is a failure.
Indeed. I believe that there are plans in future versions of HTML to
introduce a "pre" tag which prefers indentation and line breaks.
Which gets us back to the chicken and egg situation. I would probably do
this; but, at the moment, ESWC and ISWC won't let me submit it. So, I'll
end up with the PDF output anyway.
Well, I'm with ESWC and ISWC here. The review process should be designed to
make reviewing easy for reviewers.
I *only* use PDF when reviewing. I never use it for viewing anything
else. I only use it for reviewing since I am forced to.
Experiences differ, so I find this a far from compelling argument.
It may not be a compelling argument when choosing between two new
alternatives, but it is much more compelling argument against change.
This is why it is important that web conferences allow HTML, which is
where the argument started.
Why? What are the benefits of HTML reviewing, right now? What are the
benefits of HTML publishing, right now?
Well, we've been through this before, so I'll not repeat myself.
Phil
Yes, and I haven't seen any benefits using the current setup.
peter
