On 5/5/13 10:46 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote:
* MathJax output is ~5 times slower than native support. This is after 9
years of development of jsmath and MathJax (and javascript engines).
JavaScript performance hasn't stopped improving and is already far better
than 5x slower than native on use cases (like the Unreal Engine 3 demo)
that were a priori much harder for JavaScript.
This is a layout/css issue, not a js engine issue, I suspect. MathJax
HTML output just ends up having to produce lots of stuff, do lots of
layout calculations (which means doing layout!) then redo all the layout
again based on the results of those calculations.
It's really hard to make 2+ layout passes as fast as one layout pass.
I'm also speaking as a (former) mathematician, and I've never had to rely
on TeX packages that aren't found in every sane TeX distribution
It depends on your timeframe.
The packages I used in the mid-to-late '90s for embedding images in
documents no longer exist; their current replacements (with different
syntax) did not exist then.
I am still waiting for the rebuttal of my arguments, in the original email
in this thread, about how TeX is strictly better than MathML for the
particular task of representing equations.
How easy is it to build an accessibility application on top of TeX, or
even a restricted subset of it? Note that these exist for MathML, but
not so much for TeX.
I guess this comes down to how easy it is to construct exactly the same
parse/syntax tree out of TeX, right?
-Boris
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
