RE: [Axiom-developer] pamphlet support on MathAction

[Martin Rubey]

Dear Bill,

Bill Page writes:
 > Martin,
 > 
 > On Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:28 AM Martin wrote:

 > > I do understand now that it is indeed a major effort. In fact, I was quite
 > > astonished about your approach: I would have added a "pamphlet" style that
 > > accepts pamphlet files only, generates the latex via the document command,
 > > then the html via l2h or latex2html or hevea or whatever.
 > 
 > But that *is* almost what I am doing. 

OK, it seems that I did not understand... sorry. 

 > What you call 'document' is just noweave with a couple of Axiom specific
 > options. l2h is called as a filter from inside noweave to do the html
 > conversion.

Yes, I know, but I keep confusing the four possibilities in
{no,}{weave,tangle} ...

 > But l2h does not do a reasonable job of converting equations to html. So
 > what I decided was to use those features of LatexWiki that already do
 > essentially just this part of the LaTeX conversion alone. The output of my
 > modified l2h filter is just the HTML+Latex format of LatexWiki.

Well, but wouldn't it be easy to forget about the equations for a start? It
would be useable, wouldn't it. Making it pretty would be nice, but maybe that
can wait?

 > > (hevea would be an especially nice option: the pictures take
 > > a long time to load)
 > 
 > It is true that the LaTeX generated images take a comparatively long time to
 > load. But most people seem to think that hevea does a pretty awful job of
 > converting LaTeX equations to HTML.  

Yes, but with the pictures I simply cannot use it from my home computer... So
I'd prefer to have both possibilities :-)

 > The fact that it (sort of) does it at all is a kind of miracle since HTML
 > was not designed to display mathematics. That is the function of the mathML
 > extension of the language. The *best* why would be to convert LaTeX
 > equations to mathML. But mathML is still not supported widely and might not
 > really be identical to the LaTeX generated result that everyone expects.

Yes.

 > > So, in short, I think that Bob's approach is the one to go.
 > 
 > I agree in the long run. But it will take some time to get there and then to
 > add the Axiom and Reduce functionality etc.  Another few days of my time
 > (when I get time) will probably be all that is needed to get the current
 > approach working.

OK, great!

Martin