On 15 Feb 2009, at 5:45 am, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
So you mean a language which
* directly corresponds to a subset of MathML (and is therefore
easily
convertible into sensible MathML)
* is at the same time valid TeX source which can be processed by
TeX based
on a few macro
Am Freitag, 13. Februar 2009 01:30 schrieben Sie:
On 12 Feb 2009, at 8:48 pm, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
I don’t understand this. The way which works is conversion from
MathML to TeX.
So your suggestion would be to use MathML as the source language.
But this is
obviously not what you
On 12 Feb 2009, at 8:48 pm, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
I don’t understand this. The way which works is conversion from
MathML to TeX.
So your suggestion would be to use MathML as the source language.
But this is
obviously not what you suggest. I’m confused.
It's explicit enough in the
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 13:30 +1300, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
Let's take this example from the web.
math mrow msup mix/mimn2/mn /msup mo+/mo mrow
mn4/mnmoInvisibleTimes;/momix/mi /mrow mo+/mo
mn4/mn /mrow /math
NB: This example is *precisely* why I will never adopt MathML as an
authoring
Am Mittwoch, 11. Februar 2009 00:46 schrieben Sie:
I suppose I should point out what seems obvious to me, which is that one
could embed a substantial chunk of MathML (possibly all of it) in TeX. I
mean, give it a TeX-parseable syntax.
You can convert MathML into TeX but not the other way
On 12 Feb 2009, at 1:40 am, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 11. Februar 2009 00:46 schrieben Sie:
I suppose I should point out what seems obvious to me, which is
that one
could embed a substantial chunk of MathML (possibly all of it) in
TeX. I
mean, give it a TeX-parseable syntax.
Am Mittwoch, 11. Februar 2009 22:38 schrieben Sie:
On 12 Feb 2009, at 1:40 am, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 11. Februar 2009 00:46 schrieben Sie:
I suppose I should point out what seems obvious to me, which is
that one
could embed a substantial chunk of MathML (possibly all of it)
Am Dienstag, 10. Februar 2009 02:56 schrieben Sie:
On 10 Feb 2009, at 1:19 am, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
This is only true if your destination format is PDF, DVI or PS. For
a webpage, you’ll need MathML in the end and TeX is not so good in
producing MathML, I suppose.
Hmm. I find
Wolfgang Jeltsch schrieb:
This reminds me of an idea which I had some time ago. The idea is to write
all
your documentation in Template Haskell, possibly using quasiquoting to
support Haddock-like syntax. Then you could write math as ordinary Haskell
expressions and embed these
Am Samstag, 7. Februar 2009 13:46 schrieb Khudyakov Alexey:
On Friday 06 February 2009 21:24:35 Andy Smith wrote:
2009/2/6 Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org:
So using TeX as a general language for math is a very bad idea, in my
opinion. The problem is that there is no good
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
TeX is not so great for mathematics and especially not for conversion into
MathML (which would be needed for HTML output). The TeX math language
provides rather little semantic information. As input language for the
concrete software named TeX this is mostly okay since
Khudyakov Alexey wrote:
I think MathML is much less accessible than images. Yes, there are problems
with them but any browser is able to display them save for text based ones.
MathML on contrary doesn't have much support. According to wikipedia only
recent versions of gecko based browsers and
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 15:18 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
Khudyakov Alexey wrote:
I think MathML is much less accessible than images. Yes, there are problems
with them but any browser is able to display them save for text based ones.
MathML on contrary doesn't have much support.
Wolfgang Jeltsch-2 wrote:
This is only true if your destination format is PDF, DVI or PS. For a
webpage,
you’ll need MathML in the end and TeX is not so good in producing MathML,
I
suppose.
Has jsMath been considered as an alternative to images in HTML?
Am Montag, 9. Februar 2009 15:10 schrieben Sie:
I want for long to write math formulas in a paper in Haskell. Actually,
lhs2TeX can do such transformations but it is quite limited in handling
of parentheses and does not support more complicated transformations
(transforming prefix notation in
On 10 Feb 2009, at 1:19 am, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
This is only true if your destination format is PDF, DVI or PS. For
a webpage,
you’ll need MathML in the end and TeX is not so good in producing
MathML, I
suppose.
Hmm. I find designed-for-HTML documentation horrible.
In many ways the
Am Freitag, 6. Februar 2009 21:17 schrieben Sie:
It doesn't really matter if TeX is a good or bad idea for writing maths.
For our users, they might do a formula if it's TeX, they won't if it's
something else.
Oh, what ignorant users! ;-)
Well, if this discussion is about changing the real
On Friday 06 February 2009 21:24:35 Andy Smith wrote:
2009/2/6 Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org:
So using TeX as a general language for math is a very bad idea, in my
opinion. The problem is that there is no good language which provides
enough structural information for
On Friday 06 February 2009 13:31:34 George Pollard wrote:
My comment isn't related to the wider implications of third-party
hooks into Haddock, but just for the (La?)TeX stuff itself.
I think that the TeX *language* is great for writing mathematics,
but that we should be wary of blindly
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:35 AM, David Waern david.wa...@gmail.com wrote:
[..]
As for running arbitrary commands, I think we are opening up to a lot
of unfamiliar syntax. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about
that.
How do I find out what I need to install in order to build
documentation
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 01:35 +0100, David Waern wrote:
I received this question from Lennart Augustsson (via Simon M) and
thought I'd send out an inquiry to the Haskell community in general
(Lennart, I hope you don't mind):
Lennart writes:
We have some local patches for haddock that extends
Am Freitag, 6. Februar 2009 11:31 schrieb George Pollard:
I think that the TeX *language* is great for writing mathematics,
but that we should be wary of blindly incorporating TeX *output*
into Haddock.
Most of Haddock's documentation is currently HTML-based, and
if we add TeX mathematics in
2009/2/6 Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org:
So using TeX as a general language for math is a very bad idea, in my opinion.
The problem is that there is no good language which provides enough
structural information for conversion into MathML and is at the same time
simple to write and
It doesn't really matter if TeX is a good or bad idea for writing maths.
For our users, they might do a formula if it's TeX, they won't if it's
something else.
-- Lennart
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org wrote:
Am Freitag, 6. Februar 2009 11:31
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Lennart Augustsson
lenn...@augustsson.net wrote:
It doesn't really matter if TeX is a good or bad idea for writing maths.
For our users, they might do a formula if it's TeX, they won't if it's
something else.
Generally, I'd agree, but I just took a look at
I got the subject line wrong, so I'm reposting this:
Hi everyone,
I received this question from Lennart Augustsson (via Simon M) and
thought I'd send out an inquiry to the Haskell community in general
(Lennart, I hope you don't mind):
Lennart writes:
We have some local patches for haddock
26 matches
Mail list logo
