I particularly like the menu on the left hand side (more than the amount
that I particularly like the website).
That's not to say I disagree with Dima. The menu could slide in and out on
mouseover.
One general comment I have about the site is that on first impression it
looks slightly square a
Thanks for all the discussion and hints about working with the left
sidebar. I like Dima's suggestion of a 2-up mode.
You'll notice we did not center the fixed-width text in the browser
window. We are reserving the real-estate on the right for some generally
useful purpose, though we have not
besides being a distraction, the sidebar is a waste of screen space. On a
13" laptop screen I could comfortably view two pages of this side by side.
(this might be another suggestion for the design - make such a layout
possible.)
On Wednesday, 5 August 2015 16:39:36 UTC+1, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
>
You could zoom in (control plus) the browser window, which should be
> equivalent for testing purposes.
>
>
>
That's what we ended up telling my students.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
> One thing I didn't like was the inability to hide the contents frame(?) on
>> the left-hand side. It just sits there for no good reason, and is a
>> distraction.
>> IMHO it should automatically hide itself...
>>
>
> Yes, we discussed that one a lot. Try slowly making your browser window
>
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:00 AM, dimpase wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, 5 August 2015 00:20:02 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:12:29 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>>
>>> One thing I didn't like was the inability to hide the contents frame(?)
>>> on the left-hand side
On Wednesday, 5 August 2015 00:20:02 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:12:29 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> One thing I didn't like was the inability to hide the contents frame(?)
>> on the left-hand side. It just sits there for no good reason, and is a
>> dist
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:12:29 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> One thing I didn't like was the inability to hide the contents frame(?) on
> the left-hand side. It just sits there for no good reason, and is a
> distraction.
> IMHO it should automatically hide itself...
>
Yes, we discu
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 21:23:44 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 2:05:07 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> Perhaps they should rather generate your XML? (beezertex filename ;-))
>> No, seriously...
>>
>
> Yes, seriously. ;-) I hope that something like this
On 07/31/2015 07:06 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> You don't need a closing tag that can be inserted by software,
> as certainly is the case for \section or \item..
> (unless you spent a large part of your life writing HTML or XML by hand,
> of course :-))
>
The parser can insert them for you,
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:12:38 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> IMHO we should think about moving non-technical Sage docs to mathbook.
>>
> write an automatic converted, why not...
>
>
Sage-flavored ReST/Sphinx might be structured/predictable enough to be very
amenable to this.
--
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 2:05:07 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> Perhaps they should rather generate your XML? (beezertex filename ;-))
> No, seriously...
>
Yes, seriously. ;-) I hope that something like this will be in place
eventually.
> Please note that I actually rather like t
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 2:45:16 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
> It would be nice if Sage cells would know about which cells they depend
> on; Right now evaluating a cell in the middle is very likely to cough up an
> error message about something not being defined.
>
Yes, Sage Cells are
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 10:45:16 UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 4:14:33 AM UTC+2, Rob Beezer wrote:
>>
>> Seems only tex can understand TeX. ;-)
>>
>
> Tex it a Turing-complete language, XML is not. Hence only TeX can
> understand TeX,
>
Rather, "Wahr sind
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 4:14:33 AM UTC+2, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
> Seems only tex can understand TeX. ;-)
>
Tex it a Turing-complete language, XML is not. Hence only TeX can
understand TeX, but for XML there are various 100% compliant parsers and
converters. IMHO your decision to use XML i
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 03:14:33 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
> On 07/31/2015 05:25 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > And if it is so easy to convert LaTeX into HTML, why hasn't anybody
> done it
> > successfully? tex4ht is the only one I know that comes close, and
> only
> > beca
On 07/31/2015 05:25 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
And if it is so easy to convert LaTeX into HTML, why hasn't anybody done it
successfully? tex4ht is the only one I know that comes close, and only
because it is the only one that uses the tex executable.
sure, why is this bad to use the
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 01:03:25 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 4:06:01 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> You don't need a closing tag that can be inserted by software,
>> as certainly is the case for \section or \item..
>> (unless you spent a large part of y
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 4:06:01 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> I wish Knuth did review (X)HTML format proposals for sanity...
>
I should add that MathBook XML adds no new syntax for mathematics proper.
In other words, symbols, equations, displays are not written in something
like MathM
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 4:06:01 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> You don't need a closing tag that can be inserted by software,
> as certainly is the case for \section or \item..
> (unless you spent a large part of your life writing HTML or XML by hand,
> of course :-))
>
So where does
On Friday, 31 July 2015 15:27:19 UTC+1, David Farmer wrote:
>
>
> In most cases, MathBook XML is not more cumbersome than
> LaTeX, particularly if you are using an editor which
> automatically inserts closing tags.
You don't need a closing tag that can be inserted by software,
as certainly i
In most cases, MathBook XML is not more cumbersome than
LaTeX, particularly if you are using an editor which
automatically inserts closing tags. For example, in LaTeX
\section{...} starts a section, and you do not have to
explicitly indicate where the section ends. In MBX, you have
to supply t
22 matches
Mail list logo
