I do not at all times use LaTeX, however after I do…
Since I have not revealed something in nearly two months, let me jot down one thought that has come to thoughts steadily over the previous few months.
In case you use LaTeX …
Properly, to start with, are you positive you must use LaTeX? By which I imply, are you positive you’ll be able to’t use Markdown+MathJax or textile+MathJax or restructuredText+MathJax? Particularly when you’re educating your college students, are you completely positive you’re fully and completely unable to make use of one thing less complicated? One thing that’s extra trendy than studying 100 bits of print typesetting that your pupil won’t ever, ever want? Okay, simply checking. So…
In case you (must) use LaTeX, then make HTML your major output.
By which I imply: do not simply produce PDFs that no person can learn on small screens, PDFs that no person can learn accessibly, PDFs that no person will wish to learn in 5 years.
Make HTML your first output. It is vital. HTML is the longer term engine for mathematical and scientific content material. If you cannot produce HTML, then ur doin it rong. In case you do not produce HTML, you will not ever assist all of the folks engaged on pushing math on the net ahead.
It will not be trivial however simpler than you assume. Set up LaTeXML and learn to use it. (Alternatively you in all probability have a replica of tex4ht put in together with your TeX.) How exhausting is it? This tough:
latexml --dest=mydoc.xml mydoc.tex
latexmlpost --dest=mydoc.html --format=html5 mydoc.xml
And while you run into LaTeXML limitations, then recover from it, report them back, assist make it higher. In case you run into issues with MathJax, report them, assist make it higher. You want graphics? Try xyjax. You want pstricks? Try mathapedia. You want computations? Try Sage cell server. It is all there, however it’s a must to get began. To it right this moment.
However when you’ve ever needed math to be native on the net, then it’s a must to understand that it will not occur with out your assist.
In case you’re too lazy for changing (e.g., while you’re educating), then use one thing that compiles to each TeX and HTML (like markdown+MathJax and many others). Choose a good instrument for it, like Qute, ReText, write on the net with FidusWriter or Authorea.com, write in your favourite Mac-editor with Marked, or extend sublimetext, on an iPad app use Writing Kit — and that is simply off the highest of my head; there are various extra enhancing environments that supply good syntax and MathJax integration. Many can save to TeX paperwork, something might be transformed by way of pandoc. It isn’t excellent but but it surely will not get higher except you give everyone some suggestions.
So, when you can, do not writer LaTeX, writer into LaTeX. And no matter you do, compile it to HTML. It is vital.
Feedback
- michalh21, 2013/05/30
For LaTeX to html conversion, I might actually advocate tex4ht, its downside is fragmentation of documentation, some info is totally lacking, however on the opposite aspect it may convert any LaTeX doc, it may be even configured to transform tikz photos to svg, or to output math as mathml with mathjax rendering
I feel it’s a good suggestion to output html for individuals who needs to learn on tablets or good telephones, however personally, I nonetheless choose to learn PDFs, even on my laptop computer or PC. For me, PDF has benefit in higher readability. HTML even with most up-to-date tendencies like web fonts and responsive typography remains to be far behind PDF on this regard. Different benefit is pagination, it helps me with orientation in doc. Possibly not so many readers take note of such issues right this moment, however I feel majority of writers in LaTeX would not like how dangerous their paperwork look in HTML.
And final level 🙂 I do not actually assume LaTeX is tough. For issues that markdown and many others. helps, like sections, tables, hyperlinks or footnotes, it is just few instructions to be taught, each editor right this moment helps snippets for quick inserting these instructions, you should utilize templates for doc preamble and many others. And while you wish to use issues like referencing, bibliographies, indexing, glossaries and many others, utilizing LaTeX is far simpler. Plus, for brand new performance, you’ll be able to write your individual macros, which is simpler than modifying markdown parser and inventing new syntax 🙂- Peter, 2013/06/06
Thanks on your feedback. tex4ht is definitely a pleasant and highly effective instrument. However there’s a elementary distinction: it’s actually a dvi-to-html converter, not a LaTeX-to-html one. That permits it to bypass quite a lot of issues (by letting the TeX binary do all of the exhausting work) but in addition comes with losses since LaTeX is semantically richer than TeX/DVI (one thing that’s seen within the high quality of the MathML output final time I attempted it).
I perceive that most individuals discover PDFs higher. IMO, HTML has way more potential than PDF to supply a greater studying expertise, with wealthy content material and straightforward interplay with different web content material (and naturally PDFs are nearly inaccessible). My most important level was merely that we gained’t get there if we don’t get began. Authors, in any case, ought to care extra about their readers than their very own studying expertise. They’ll, in spite of everything, produce no matter they like for themselves whereas a reader hardly ever has that possibility. (Personally, I choose my handwritten notes however that gained’t assist anybody given my illegible hand writing)
I’m positively not attempting to inform folks what they need to use. Definitely, an skilled person usually finds LaTeX essentially the most versatile and highly effective instrument (TeX is a programming language, in spite of everything). However this energy brings an terrible lot of issues with it and in nearly all state of affairs that energy is just not wanted. So I do wish to argue for the precise instrument for the job as an alternative, particularly in instructional settings — and above all, I wish to argue for conversion. No instrument or format is ideal. However any content material that can not be transformed to one thing else is (for higher or worse) at a useless finish.
- Peter, 2013/06/06
- Norman Lewis Perlmutter, 2013/06/04
On condition that LaTeX already compiles into pdf, may it’s higher to make use of or develop a pdf to html converter? This might have the additional benefit of having the ability to convert pdf recordsdata not generated by LaTeX into html.- Peter, 2013/06/06
The quick reply is: no. PDF is a really “loss-ful” format. The one option to extract e.g. mathematical content material is by utilizing heuristics, i.e., guessing from the location what sort of expression was truly used. Whereas converters like pdf.js do job at reproducing the structure, they don’t actually convert to HTML, they merely render it (very like a printer) — the output is inaccessible, doesn’t reflow nicely and many others. TeX to HTML is already very strong and utilized in huge publishing homes. Computerized conversion is probably at 95% — however to get to 100% (which is required), the open supply tasks on the market want suggestions.
For the reason that conversion from for strictly mathematical TeX to MathML could be very strong, it’s a lot simpler to go immediately anyway. The one remaining downside are the messy packages, specifically the graphical packages that might both be transformed to static graphics (like LaTeXML or tex4ht do) or re-implemented in javascript (like xyjax or mathapedia).
- Peter, 2013/06/06
- jessemckeown. 2013/06/06
Properly, I’m doing my little or no bit, then; because you point out it, although, is there any plan to finally soak up xyjax into the principle mathjax? AMScd does do the arrows nicer than placingtoanddownarrowin astart{array}finish{array}, however…- jessemckeown, 2013/06/06
Oh, I forgot to ensure of the precise web site…
- jessemckeown, 2013/06/06