Thanks, praveenp.
Could you clarify if the problems you've seen are MediaWiki, texvc or MathJax specific? I could only find 48032https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48032 (MathJax should be fixed in the next release), and 48118https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48118, from which I understand, RTL is not supported by texvc. MathJax currently does not support RTL but we plan to add it -- and, as I wrote, I'd be very interested to hear if texvc is still being developed.
MathJax does not deal with ligatures directly since ligatures are really text-mode, not math mode. So ligatures in text-blocks are passed through by MathJax and should not be broken. Again, I don't know what texvc does.
Anyway, more bug reports would be great so that issues can be investigated. I can't really comment if those are serious from a WMF pov. Peter.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:53 AM, praveenp me.praveen@gmail.com wrote:
I've problems with browsers like IE (Mainly XP) and opera (ubuntu 12.04/Mint Maya), although I forgot exact version numbers. And also it takes each code points independently so it converts rtl language to ltr language, or breaks any ligatures etc. (Aren't they serious bugs?)
On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:34:56 AM IST, Peter Krautzberger wrote:
@Mark Just to clarify. Personally, I don't think wikitext's math format should move away from a TeX-like input language. The point I was trying making was that a conservative extension would be useful if MathML becomes a desired output. It seems to me that texvc was specifically designed to prevent fully fledged TeX input, so I wonder if it wouldn't help everyone if wasn't required on the backend anymore, only that the syntax stayed backward compatible.
@paveenp I don't know what you mean by "unsupportably dependent". I am also not aware of "serious bugs". Could you be more specific?
Peter.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
On 8/2/13 7:07 PM, praveenp wrote:
On Friday 02 August 2013 09:06 PM, Delirium wrote:
On 7/22/13 2:53 AM, Peter Krautzberger wrote:
- TeX/LaTeX compatibility might be lost.
"Native" content (e.g. <maction> or even subexpression links) has no counterpart in TeX. Conservative extensions of TeX can easily enable this kind of content but backward compatibility will be lost.
If this means MathML as the canonical format, i.e. people write
MathML into articles directly, rather than it just being an output/rendering format, that gives me moderate worry:
- From the perspective of being able to repurpose Wikipedia articles
outside of a web context, TeX-format equations are nice for articles in the math/science sphere, since TeX-based publishing workflows are common in math/science, and equations are particularly tedious and error-prone to convert by hand, if that would end up necessary. Admittedly, in some workflows there's no real difference: you can import both MathML and TeX equations into MS Word with appropriate plugins (I haven't looked into whether the two import paths differ on compatibility). Perhaps as HTML-based print workflows improve this will drop off as an issue, but right now only a smallish proportion of people are using workflows based on something like PrinceXML, and the free-software alternatives to PrinceXML are further behind.
- From a wikitext-readability perspective, TeX-format equations are
the de-facto standard way of ASCII-fying equations, e.g. in plaintext emails, while MathML isn't written in a syntax any humans normally write. So using TeX as our underlying representation makes equations possible to edit in text form, at least for people who already professionally work in areas where that's common, while MathML equations virtually require a visual editor (unless the idea is to use something like ASCIIMathML?).
What??!!?? sorry I didn't get a thing from this. :-)
Current scenario is: In our current Math extension, textvc is simply unable to generate equations in png except Latin languages. Also Mathjax is heavily client dependent (Unsupportably dependent) and has its own serious bugs.
I read Peter's point 2 as discussing the possible "native" use of MathML tags, i.e. permitting people to write MathML into articles, rather than only using MathML as an alternate rendering path for texvc/MathJax/etc. If MathML is a render-only target, then "TeX/LaTeX compatibility might be lost" doesn't seem like it could be an issue. So unless I'm totally misreading, I took the discussion to be about allowing MathML in articles, which could break TeX compatibility since not all MathML tags can be rendered back into TeX equivalents. The two points above are my two concerns w.r.t. that suggestion. Am I misreading the suggestion entirely?
-Mark
______________________________****_________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/****mailman/listinfo/wikitech-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l <ht**tps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
______________________________**_________________
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
______________________________**_________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l