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
Dear Bernard,
Thanks for the note and links. I was not very aware of GIAC. It could be
a useful thing for MathBook XML authors to have available.
Have you considered using MathJax within your HTML output? It too is
Javascript and can be configured to execute locally.
Rob
On Friday, July 31
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, July 31, 2015 at 3:47:56 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> XML? I wish pandoc (http://pandoc.org/) could handle conversions to and
> from your format...
> Do people really want to write XML by hand? I tried it once (GAP docs can
> be prepared using XML) and was not amused.
>
> Ju
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
On Friday, 31 July 2015 02:17:27 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 12:59:54 PM UTC-7, parisse wrote:
>>
>> I had a quick look, but I'm still a little bit confused how the source
>> are written. Do you write your source files in xml or have you some kind of
>> converter
