16 ms·
That's a problem for mathml. The more required tooling, the less likely it is to be used. TeX hits this weird sweet spot between writing code and writing a docu
by monadic2 6y ago
That's a problem for mathml. The more required tooling, the less likely it is to be used. TeX hits this weird sweet spot between writing code and writing a document that's very productive.
- runarberg 6y agoThen use a library that converts TeX into MathML. I can recommend TeXZilla[1] (the author is also a major contributor to the MathML stadard). <p> The triangle inequality states that <la-tex>z \leq x + y</la-tex>. </p> Disclosure: I am my self an author of an alternative library MathUp[2]. 1: http://fred-wang.github.io/TeXZilla/ http://fred-wang.github.io/TeXZilla/ 2: https://runarberg.github.io/mathup/ https://runarberg.github.io/mathup/
- thayne 6y agoThat still requires more tooling.
- runarberg 6y agoIt is a little unfair since LaTeX has tons of extra libraries involved. It’s probably been more than 5 years since I touched LaTeX, but I usually (if I remember correctly) used amsmath, babel, biblatex, inputenc, fontenc, hyperref before I even started. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask authors that insist on writing in familiar syntax, that they use a tool that enables that. With native MathML authors are free to use whichever tool chain they prefer. Some authors will prefer graphical editing of equations, so they have their authoring tools set up that way. Others will just want to write their familiar latex syntax so they’ll put a: <script src="./path/to/texzilla.js"></script> in their document and write as before.