Mailing List Archive: TeX, version 2

TeX, version 2

Dec 1, 2002, 6:18 PM

Post #1 of 6 (532 views)

Version 2:
* it doesn't generate PNG if it already exists
* it supports more TeX
* TeX used as a shell argument is escaped properly now

ISSUE 18:
Escaping from further passes is very important.
Following things must me protected from interpretation:
* TeX markup if uses choses "leave it as TeX" mode
* contents of alt= tags
* Messages saping that some TeX couldn't be generated.

Should I just generate unique character strings like <nowiki> does ?

ISSUE 19:
I'm not sure if \mbox is right thing to have.
Isn't it meant to do things other than math ?
I'm no TeX expert so please comment.

ISSUE 20:
How ugly HTML will we allow ?

Sums and integrals in HTML will be redable but extremely ugly.
Well, we could implement more sophisticated HTML rendering algorithms,
for example using a table for that.

But I'm not sure if it's worth the effort.

ISSUE 21:

I'm using:
http://www.fi.uib.no/Fysisk/Teori/KURS/WRK/TeX/symALL.html
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encje_HTML

to get list of things we should support.

Is there some better list ?

Re: TeX, version 2, ISSUES 19,20 [ In reply to ]

JeLuF at gmx

Dec 2, 2002, 1:24 AM

Post #2 of 6 (522 views)

Permalink

On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 02:18:49AM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> ISSUE 19:
> I'm not sure if \mbox is right thing to have.
> Isn't it meant to do things other than math ?
> I'm no TeX expert so please comment.

Yes, that's what it's for. You need it if you want to have
text inside of a formula. $${x\in\bbN: x \mbox{is prime}}$$
(where \bbN is a capital N in a blackboard font).
Or if you want to have
$$\frac{\mbox{divisor}}{\mbox{divident}}$$

> ISSUE 20:
> How ugly HTML will we allow ?
>
> Sums and integrals in HTML will be redable but extremely ugly.
> Well, we could implement more sophisticated HTML rendering algorithms,
> for example using a table for that.
>
> But I'm not sure if it's worth the effort.

Agreed. It would be hard to have the borders of the integral in place
with HTML. You might implement it later, if it's really asked for.

Regards,

JeLuF

Re: TeX, version 2 [ In reply to ]

e.moeller at fokus

Dec 2, 2002, 3:50 AM

Post #3 of 6 (522 views)

Permalink

Tomasz,

perhaps I have missed something, but where can I find this texvc you are
using? Google turns up nothing.

Regards,

Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de

Re: TeX, version 2 [ In reply to ]

taw at users

Dec 2, 2002, 6:22 AM

Post #4 of 6 (525 views)

Permalink

On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:50:54AM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Tomasz,
>
> perhaps I have missed something, but where can I find this texvc you are
> using? Google turns up nothing.

It's inside patch in attachment.

Re: TeX, version 2 [ In reply to ]

e.moeller at fokus

Dec 2, 2002, 8:56 AM

Post #5 of 6 (526 views)

Permalink

OK, I got it to work. It took me a while to figure out the right
directory settings and permissions. Please make sure to have this
configurable in LocalSettings.php and passed to texvc from
OutputPage.php.

Is it possible to generate transparent PNGs? That would look a lot
nicer.

One major problem is that it doesn't match <math></math> pairs with
linebreaks within them. I don't know why, I thought all the preg_
functions would treat the string as a single line.

Otherwise, good work. Let us know when you think it's ready.

Regards,

Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de

Re: TeX, version 2 [ In reply to ]

taw at users

Dec 2, 2002, 12:08 PM

Post #6 of 6 (526 views)

Permalink

On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:56:45PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
> OK, I got it to work. It took me a while to figure out the right
> directory settings and permissions. Please make sure to have this
> configurable in LocalSettings.php and passed to texvc from
> OutputPage.php.

Sure.

> Is it possible to generate transparent PNGs? That would look a lot
> nicer.

What is state of support for transparent PNGs in browsers ?
Would it be necessary to support non-transparent PNGs too ?

Does anybody remember how to do that with ImageMagick without writing
a script ?

> One major problem is that it doesn't match <math></math> pairs with
> linebreaks within them. I don't know why, I thought all the preg_
> functions would treat the string as a single line.

. matches everything but \n by default.
Yes, that should be changed.

Mailing List Archive

Mailing List Archive

Attached Files: