I should be more clear. I'd try including \usepackage{amssymb} in macros.tex
and see if you can build to HTML without errors. If errors occur, then try
limiting the include to non-HTML output. It is curious that other symbols
are rendering perfectly given this lack of inclusion for amssymb... but this
may have to do with the loading of OT2?
Jason
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Jason B Hill <jason.b.h...@colorado.edu>wrote:
>
> amssymb is a subset of amsfonts, and is only required when the font used
> isn't otherwise defined as a math-capable font. So, it isn't surprising that
> this is working fine when building to HTML... although I'm not as familiar
> with the latex -> html process.
>
> amsfonts/amssymb should most likely only be included when building to PDF
> is my guess. If you reference symbol paths multiple times, latex gets
> unhappy. I.e.,
>
> \usepackage{amssymb}
> \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
> \usepackage[bitstream-charter]{mathdesign}
>
> will return an error, since then \leqslant, for instance, is defined twice.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Rob Beezer <goo...@beezer.cotse.net>wrote:
>
>> Mitesh Patel discovered that the tex macro "\leqslant" (a slanted
>> inequality) breaks the PDF reference manual, while it survives just
>> fine in the HTML version. (Introduced at Trac #8030, which is merged,
>> fixed at Trac #9102, awaiting review.) This symbol seems to be
>> provided by the AMS packages amssymb and/or amsfonts. On my tex
>> installation, both are provided in texmf-texlive/tex/latex/amsfonts/,
>> so I think these are fairly standard packages to expect a user/
>> developer to have.
>>
>> Limited poking around shows:
>>
>> (1) In doc/common/macros.tex, there is the line
>>
>> \usepackage{amsmath}
>>
>> but this file makes no mention of amssymb or amsfonts
>>
>>
>> (2) In doc/common/conf.py (which looks Sphinx-specific?) there is the
>> line
>>
>> latex_elements['preamble'] = '\usepackage{amsmath}\n
>> \usepackage{amsfonts}\n'
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> (a) Is the distinction conscious, or is this an omission of AMS
>> symbols on the PDF side?
>>
>> (b) If in need of fixing, is macros.tex the place to add?
>>
>> (c) And if so, is amsfonts superior to amssymb, or vice versa (or
>> both?)? I always have good luck with amssymb only. I would assume we
>> want the same macros available for both HTML and PDF versions of the
>> docs?
>>
>> Thanks for any history, input, advice.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> --
>> To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
>> sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<sage-devel%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
>> URL: http://www.sagemath.org
>>
>
>
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
