[HN Gopher] Web Publications - LaTeX Style - HTML View
___________________________________________________________________
Web Publications - LaTeX Style - HTML View
Author : fango
Score : 78 points
Date : 2021-06-06 15:03 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (goessner.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (goessner.github.io)
| lobocinza wrote:
| Use Katex
| JadeNB wrote:
| > Use Katex
|
| This does use KaTeX for rendering the TeX:
|
| > Math support is the core functionality of mdmath. Inline math
| $r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$ and display math expressions
| $$e^{ix}=\cos x + i\sin x$$ are supported, due to markdown-it
| extension markdown-it-texmath [8] and the fast math renderer
| KaTeX [9].
|
| > [8] markdown-it-texmath,
| (https://github.com/goessner/markdown-it-texmath).
|
| > [9] KaTeX, (https://katex.org/)
| leephillips wrote:
| I found it hard to understand the point of this. It talks about
| imitating the "look and feel" of LaTeX documents in HTML, but
| fails to do so. If the article itself is an example, it's the
| familiar low-quality browser-rendered HTML typography.
| tasogare wrote:
| Also "LaTeX look and feel" doesn't mean anything to start from:
| Latex documents look vastly different depending on which
| template they use. A lot of conferences and journals allow for
| both Word and Latex files to be sent, and it's impossible to
| guess in the output which tool was used to author a given
| paper.
| choeger wrote:
| I am convinced if you give me a Word and a LaTeX paper from
| the same conference, I can tell you which one is from the
| typesetting tool and which one from the word processor.
| jimhefferon wrote:
| Yes, LaTeX documents could have many different document
| classes. But many, many authors stick with the defaults,
| which a person could as a shortcut call the "LaTeX look."
| azangru wrote:
| From the abstract:
|
| > The resulting HTML document already contains prerendered math
| formulas, so browsers won't have the burden of math rendering
| via scripting.
|
| It wants the math support of latex in an html document
| generated from the markdown source file.
| leephillips wrote:
| KaTeX already provides pre-rendering of math. If you want to
| start with Markdown you can use Pandoc. Then you can get TeX,
| HTML, and even Word formats from the same source. This
| project seems to only work with one particular editor, as
| well.
| ubavic wrote:
| It is sad that in 2021 we are still using heavyweight js
| libraries for displaying mathematical notation, instead W3C
| specification - MathML.
| leephillips wrote:
| If you look at the source of the fine article, you will see
| that the equations are in MathML. They are pre-rendered by
| KaTeX from LaTeX notation to MathML. There are other tools that
| do this, too. MathML is indeed being used, you see. It's just
| that nobody wants to write in it.
| thomasahle wrote:
| I've found that Texmacs produces some nice and fast html pages,
| like this: https://www.texmacs.org/joris/pcomp/pcomp.html
|
| However, I don't know if there's a way to use it for regular Tex
| documents.
| inamiyar wrote:
| This is maybe the third time I've seen the concept of a LaTeX
| styled html page and it never seems like a good idea to me. I'm
| all for math typesetting in HTML, but I no longer "believe" in
| justification, especially not browser's dissatisfying one-
| paragraph based techniques. But even with knuth-plass I have
| reasons to suspect ragged right text is better, see
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27189306 I'm willing to
| change my mind with more evidence, justified text _is_ pretty.
| inamiyar wrote:
| I also forgot to mention that for most people at low dpi (I
| would say 300dpi and lower, but I personally wouldn't use a
| serif till ~1500dpi) sans-serifs are more legible. This blog
| post has some good information: https://geniusee.com/single-
| blog/font-readability-research-f...
|
| I had better sources at some point but I'll have to dig them
| up.
| leephillips wrote:
| I agree if you have in mind fonts with really thin serifs,
| such as the classic Computer Modern. But serif fonts in
| general seem fine to me at 300 dpi, or even 240 dpi.
| Readability depends more on the particular font used at a
| particular size, rather than whether it's serif or not.
| inamiyar wrote:
| Yeah the serif/sans distinction is definitely down the list
| compared to font size, column width, line spacing,
| contrast, etc. I just brought it up because I consider it
| part of the "LaTeX" style. But you're right...something
| something premature optimization
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Where are you getting 1500 DPI?
|
| Most printers _start_ at 300--600 DPI, _before_ ink and /or
| toner bleed. 1200 DPI is photo-print level.
|
| Serif at ~150+ DPI is both readable and preferable to sans
| IME.
|
| Your referenced blog entry makes no mention of DPI that I
| find. And makes numerous grammatical choices which lead me to
| question its authority.
|
| For printer DPI comparisons see:
| https://www.printerknowledge.com/threads/effective-print-
| out...
| cryptonector wrote:
| Thanks for that informative link. I personally like ragged
| right text. I also like fixed-width fonts. Strange, I know.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-06 23:02 UTC)