MathJax Compiler in LaTex
Olivier Nicole
olivier at chnik.fr
Tue Feb 8 10:12:31 CET 2022
Thanks to you both for your input. I see now that my arguments to say
that the two programs are different were by far not the simplest ones.
Also, I didn't know about processing of MathML in TeX! Thanks for the
discovery.
Olivier
On 08/02/2022 06:50, Paulo Ney de Souza wrote:
> I must disagree as well Oliver, but for different reasons than Phillip.
>
> First to see that MathJax */is/* different from TeX you could browse the
> sources. MathJax is Open Source:
>
> https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax-src/
> <https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax-src/>
>
> It does use a few algorithms and techniques that are in the original
> TeX, and it mimic the original display of formulas awfully close, but if
> you build a display using the same fonts, and specially if you use
> enlargements, you can see the differences.
>
> Now to believe that TeX can't process MathML is just plain incorrect. It
> may not be the best language to do so, but in order to use it you just
> need the appropriate macro and package set
>
> If you choose ConTeXt and the "mathml" module and you can process
> results immediately, as seen here:
>
> https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/57717/relationship-between-mathml-and-tex
> <https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/57717/relationship-between-mathml-and-tex>
>
> Paulo Ney
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 9:07 AM Philip Taylor (Hellenic Institute)
> <P.Taylor at hellenic-institute.uk <mailto:P.Taylor at hellenic-institute.uk>>
> wrote:
>
> Olivier Nicole wrote:
>> [...] I simply used this as an argument to say that it stands to
>> reason that the implementation of MathJax must be different from
>> that of TeX, since it has to support a different set of primitive
>> constructs.
> I respectfully disagree. Which is not to suggest that I believe
> that the implementation of MathJax is necessarily the same as that
> of TeX (I have no idea whether it is or not), merely that I
> challenge the assertions on which I believe your argument to is based.
>
> For a start, why do you assert that "[MathJax] has to support a
> different set of primitive constructs" ? Why must they be
> /primitive/ constructs ? If MathJax were/is the same as that of
> TeX, then those constructs could be handled by a format file.
>
> As to "the MathML specification describes a few mathematical
> elements that, in (La)TeX, would require to use a dedicated
> package", there would be no requirement for "a dedicated package" at
> all — a competent (La)TeX programmer could write code to handle
> those elements without needing any extra package(s).
>
> The defence rests.
> --
> /Philip Taylor/
>
More information about the texhax
mailing list.