Le 25 févr. 08 à 11:48, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
That is exactly one of the problems with MathTran: It is on a remote host. This means that: - it might not be usable in some strict intranets, where there's no or restricted access to the internet - If the MathTran server is down, then no images will appear - It increases the traffic to an external server If it were to be installed on a local server, then we're back to the other problem: heavy installation.
This flexibility is sane I feel.
be fully rich since this language is not specified) is LaTeX to MathML... the differences always byte TeX-experts. This is my sole reason to push a pure TeX approach such as MathTran (aside of the high-layout-quality).Still, it is TeX and not LaTeX, as I read in the Moodle page talkingabout MathTran. This is a drawback, as LaTeX users will be confused. I,for one, know only the LaTeX syntax.
This difference is livable to all mathematicians I know of.
A problem with non-TeX is that the result is not as good looking as aTeX one. Damn, those articles look good! Still, the wiki is not meant tobe the complete article authoring product. It is just the place where the authors can collaborate on the article, and have a fair preview of how the document would look, then export it as a LaTeX document which can be processed by a real tex system.
As reaction to your concerns, Jonathan Fine has posted a blog entry:http://jonathanfine.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/using-mathtran-in- blogs-and-wikis/
which describes well the embedding methods.I tend to believe that XWiki distributions (SPAWN distributions) should ship with the medium (proxied) method (maybe optionally activated) and with DVI processing for printing (again an option, depends on the TeX fonts).
And another thing is that the STIX fonts are almost (!) ready. They arepassed the beta preview stage, and will soon be final. Perhaps MathML and PNG-ed MathML equation will look better with those fonts.
There's more than the fonts... there's the layout capabilities and this is where no system competes. And, sure, Stixfonts can do a lot but they have been soooooo late that trust is not really best... the beta was for several years ago!
Should I rather stop the TeX approach (MathTran has limitations e.g. with the usage of self-defined macros) and push more the MathML one? It's basically about assessing the "eternal need for real TeX".I'd say that the web is moving towards XML and XML languages. MathML belongs to the future. There are much more tools that support MathML than (La)TeX.Still, asking users to write MathML in the wiki content is too much. So,there should be support for LaTeX equations, but they should not be interpreted by a TeX engine (be it local or a remote service), instead they should be transformed into MathML (as good as possible, whenever there's a difference it can be addressed and fixed).
This option has been difficult and haunting for many many many folks.Therefore I was more than happy to see the appearance of a TeX daemon in the form of MathTran.
We can still shop for MathML-based solutions: - a browser-level editor (in GWT ideally(!)) - a feature-rich syntax-to-mathml-p converter - a rendering to picture and a rendering for print I'm just worried it takes muuuuch longer. paul
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
