[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Axiom-developer] pamphlet support on MathAction
From: |
Martin Rubey |
Subject: |
RE: [Axiom-developer] pamphlet support on MathAction |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:09 +0000 |
Dear Bill,
Bill Page writes:
> Martin,
>
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:28 AM Martin wrote:
> > I do understand now that it is indeed a major effort. In fact, I was quite
> > astonished about your approach: I would have added a "pamphlet" style that
> > accepts pamphlet files only, generates the latex via the document command,
> > then the html via l2h or latex2html or hevea or whatever.
>
> But that *is* almost what I am doing.
OK, it seems that I did not understand... sorry.
> What you call 'document' is just noweave with a couple of Axiom specific
> options. l2h is called as a filter from inside noweave to do the html
> conversion.
Yes, I know, but I keep confusing the four possibilities in
{no,}{weave,tangle} ...
> But l2h does not do a reasonable job of converting equations to html. So
> what I decided was to use those features of LatexWiki that already do
> essentially just this part of the LaTeX conversion alone. The output of my
> modified l2h filter is just the HTML+Latex format of LatexWiki.
Well, but wouldn't it be easy to forget about the equations for a start? It
would be useable, wouldn't it. Making it pretty would be nice, but maybe that
can wait?
> > (hevea would be an especially nice option: the pictures take
> > a long time to load)
>
> It is true that the LaTeX generated images take a comparatively long time to
> load. But most people seem to think that hevea does a pretty awful job of
> converting LaTeX equations to HTML.
Yes, but with the pictures I simply cannot use it from my home computer... So
I'd prefer to have both possibilities :-)
> The fact that it (sort of) does it at all is a kind of miracle since HTML
> was not designed to display mathematics. That is the function of the mathML
> extension of the language. The *best* why would be to convert LaTeX
> equations to mathML. But mathML is still not supported widely and might not
> really be identical to the LaTeX generated result that everyone expects.
Yes.
> > So, in short, I think that Bob's approach is the one to go.
>
> I agree in the long run. But it will take some time to get there and then to
> add the Axiom and Reduce functionality etc. Another few days of my time
> (when I get time) will probably be all that is needed to get the current
> approach working.
OK, great!
Martin