On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 02:45 +0200, jerzy.karczmarczuk@info.unicaen.fr wrote:
PR Stanley writes:
One of the reasons I'm interested in Wikipedia and Wikibook is because you're more likely to find Latex source code used for typesetting the maths. Latex is the one and only 100% tool right now. A lot of publishers use Latex but try to get anything from them in electronic form.
I don't understand you. WHAT YOU WANT?
1. Many articles in Wikipedia typeset math formulae as *images*, you don't really see the LaTeX sources. Some formulae are typed through plain HTML.
2. MOST journal publishers who recommend LaTeX give you the appropriate .cls files. Kluwer, Journal of Functional Programming, etc. Sometimes the attached manuals contain formulae. Whom did you ask, and what did you want?
3. LaTeX is NOT the one and only one. Texts which should be printed, OK, I format in LaTeX. Presentations on screen, my lectures, seminars, etc. I format in MathML, and I show using Mozilla, etc., standard navigator. Of course, making MathML by hand is like eating oysters with shells.
I recommend then the script of Peter Jipsen http://www1.chapman.edu/~jipsen/mathml/asciimath.html which permits you to write your formulae intuitively, and fast. And reasonably well, although the comparison with LaTeX would be difficult.
This is my problem with XML --- the syntax is so verbose, people are driven to *author* in anything but XML. TeX can be authored directly, by a real person, using a standard text editor. Infinitely superior to XML. jcc