Jan Hidders wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Jan Hidders wrote:
That mathematical variables are preferrably enclosed in [$ and $] and that if you want to use sub- and superscript in them you can write [$x_n$] and [$c^2$].
And that you'd better not write "[$x% = x/100$]", because that won't work.
Since when is "x% = x/100" a common variable name? That's the only thing I talked about in my short explanation.
Ah, now it is me that is not understanding you. You intend to render [$...$] by calling LaTeX (possibly using a script to render simple things in other ways, but still ultimately to make LaTeX the arbiter of meaning), right? But now should I understand that you won't normally use it in an expression like [$x^2y = z_1$]; you'd write [$x^2$][$y$] = [$z_1$], and save the full power of LaTeX for the fancy stuff? That would keep people from trying [$x% = x/100$], mostly.
And you'd better not write "the right [[coset]] [$H\G$]".
Doing group theory is not what I would call "doing only a little mathematics". The pages on group theory will probably contain more LaTeX anyway.
The current [[Factor group]] (there is no [[Coset]]) would barely improve with LaTeX.
Apart from that there would be another section containing more explanation for writing complex math with [$ .. $] and [$$ .. $$]. This would probably be the same as what you would write for [[math: ..]]. We cannot get around mentioning LaTeX somewhere.
Well, that's just it. We must mention LaTeX to make [$c^2$] work your way.
Where in my little explanation did I use the word LaTeX?
If [$...$] calls LaTeX, then I hope that you mention it ''somewhere''. I understand that you don't have to mention it at the ''beginning''.
But we don't need to mention it for other solutions.
If you propose [[math: ... ]] then we also cannot explain what it does without mentioning LaTeX.
I already agreed that [[math:...]] is essentially the same as [$...$], if both call LaTeX; it's $$...$$ as <var>...</var> that doesn't need this, because it ''doesn't'' call LaTeX.
But I agree that having 2 systems of notation is problematic. I just find it even *more* problematic to have 1 system of notation that will mystify anybody that tries to use a percent symbol or a brace.
Of course, but if you introduce LaTeX something like that is going to happen anyway. Please keep in mind that all the time I have been arguing that *if* we introduce a mark-up for LaTeX *then* it's better to have one mark-up for variables and expressions. That doesn't say anything about what we should do if we don't introduce LaTeX, but I suspect you already know what my position then will be.
I also am speaking about ''if'' we introduce a markup for LaTeX; but my argument is that it shouldn't make simple things any harder, or introduce surprises into simple things (like weird behavior for "%").
That's not what I meant; what's relevant to me is the argument against <var>. If that's really not right, then it could put a new perspective on *my* view of the matter, even if it doesn't affect *yours*.
I don't have an argument against <var> per se. I have argued that (1) if we already have ''' and <i> I don't think the added complexity of <var> is justified and (2) if we already have mark-up for LaTeX then we could also use that for variable name, so then we also don't need <var>. Since we already exchanged our arguments on (1) and no more new points were raised, I don't see any point in continuing that discussion.
I remember these, and I agree that there's no point in rehashing them. It's the comment that <var> was never intended for mathematical variables that caught my eye. I'd like to hear more about that, if you want, either here or elsewhere. But we can continue the main discussion meanwhile.
But since you and I are the only people discussing this now, and I'm standing in opposition to you, still you should care about that.
Oh, but I do. It's just that I have a busy day time job (that tends to flow over into my weekends) where I have to write articles with dead-lines and teach classes at university the next day. So I like to keep my discussions short and to the point so there is also some time left to also actually add something to Wikipedia.
I'm mostly staying away from the discussion of tables for this reason ^_^.
-- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia-l@math.ucr.edu
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 01:11:14AM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
Jan Hidders wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Jan Hidders wrote:
You intend to render [$...$] by calling LaTeX (possibly using a script to render simple things in other ways, but still ultimately to make LaTeX the arbiter of meaning), right?
Exactly. And these other ways could also be MathML, for example.
But now should I understand that you won't normally use it in an expression like [$x^2y = z_1$]; you'd write [$x^2$][$y$] = [$z_1$], and save the full power of LaTeX for the fancy stuff? That would keep people from trying [$x% = x/100$], mostly.
Ah, isn't communication wonderful if it works. :-) Actually I would even expect people to write [$x$]<sup>2</sup>[$y$]. However, if I'm honest I have to admit that my fingers would be itching to change that to [$x^2y = z_1$].
Well, that's just it. We must mention LaTeX to make [$c^2$] work your way.
Where in my little explanation did I use the word LaTeX?
If [$...$] calls LaTeX, then I hope that you mention it ''somewhere''. I understand that you don't have to mention it at the ''beginning''.
Well, having thought about it a bit more, maybe I *would* mention it at the beginning. If [$ .. $] means that its contents is going to be interpreted as LaTeX markup then that is what the first sentence of its description should say. But I would follow that with saying that for simple mathematics you only have to know [$x_1$] and [$y^k$] means.
I also am speaking about ''if'' we introduce a markup for LaTeX; but my argument is that it shouldn't make simple things any harder, or introduce surprises into simple things (like weird behavior for "%").
I agree, and that is one of the reasons that I now think that we should mention LaTeX right from the beginning. People then would know that "weird" stuff might happen if they are going to put more than just variable names between [$ and $].
I remember these, and I agree that there's no point in rehashing them. It's the comment that <var> was never intended for mathematical variables that caught my eye. I'd like to hear more about that, if you want, either here or elsewhere.
Well, I didn't consider that an important argument because it is what browser are actually doing with it at the moment that matters. Anyway. The description in HTML2.0:
The VAR element indicates a placeholder variable, typically rendered as italic. For example:
Type <SAMP>html-check <VAR>file</VAR> | more</SAMP> to check <VAR>file</VAR> for markup errors.
in HTML3.2:
used for variables or arguments to commands
and in HTML4.0:
Indicates an instance of a variable or program argument.
In "A beginners guide to HTML" (originally at NCSA) it is described as:
for a "metasyntactic" variable, where the user is to replace the variable with a specific instance. Typically displayed in italics. (<kbd>rm</kbd> <var>filename</var> deletes the file.)
-- Jan Hidders
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 12:18:59PM +0200, Jan Hidders wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 01:11:14AM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
Jan Hidders wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Jan Hidders wrote:
You intend to render [$...$] by calling LaTeX (possibly using a script to render simple things in other ways, but still ultimately to make LaTeX the arbiter of meaning), right?
Exactly. And these other ways could also be MathML, for example.
But now should I understand that you won't normally use it in an expression like [$x^2y = z_1$]; you'd write [$x^2$][$y$] = [$z_1$], and save the full power of LaTeX for the fancy stuff? That would keep people from trying [$x% = x/100$], mostly.
Ah, isn't communication wonderful if it works. :-) Actually I would even expect people to write [$x$]<sup>2</sup>[$y$]. However, if I'm honest I have to admit that my fingers would be itching to change that to [$x^2y = z_1$].
Hi,
regarding "%": I think we don't need TeX-comments in our formulas. We could just replace % by \percent{} before passing the input over to TeX.
regarding "simple style vs. complex formulas": I changed the parser of my proof-of-concept-code to first check whether the formula is "simple", that is only contains: digits, letters (small+capital), +-*/=(), ^, _, {} and blanks. If this is the case, the formula will be set as HTML using <sub> and <sup>.
An example can be seen at http://jeluf.mine.nu/jf/newcodebase/wiki.phtml?title=Triangle
I still use [[math: ... ]]-syntax, the code is prepared to also support [$ $], too. Before implementing this I wanted to wait for Lee's proposal for the future Wiki Markup Language.
Regards,
JeLuF
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 12:16:59PM +0200, Jens Frank wrote:
regarding "%": I think we don't need TeX-comments in our formulas. We could just replace % by \percent{} before passing the input over to TeX.
There are probably other symbols that are also a problem, and I'm not so sure whether we really don't need %. For complex stuff such as for example commuting diagrams it would probably nice for the future editor to have some comments that explain what is going on. Moreover, it would also mean an (admittedly small) incompatability with planetmath.org.
regarding "simple style vs. complex formulas": I changed the parser of my proof-of-concept-code to first check whether the formula is "simple", that is only contains: digits, letters (small+capital), +-*/=(), ^, _, {} and blanks. If this is the case, the formula will be set as HTML using <sub> and <sup>.
Interesting. I'f I'm honest I have to admit that it looks a bit odd that one formula a^2 + b^2 = c^2 looks different from c^2 = a^2 + b^a - 2ab cos(\gamma). Perhaps we should only do this for the in-line formula.
Before implementing this I wanted to wait for Lee's proposal for the future Wiki Markup Language.
Yes, agreed, and I'm very curious what it will be. :-)
-- Jan Hidders
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org