| ... | ... | @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ Apply to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* incorporate Davide's amscd code.
|
|
|
|
* investigate a LaTeX2e extra symbols extension.
|
|
|
|
* offer instiki syntax as input -> **not a priority** (instiki never exposes its TeX syntax but converts to MathML). fred: actually instiki just uses itex2MML and I think has an option to use blahtex. Both tools are open source so the syntax is known. peter: true but we should probably open up another section for "input processors"? fred: it's probably overkill to implement input processors for itex2MML or blahtex. They basically rely on the same LaTeX-like syntax as MathJax TeX input processor. Extensions to add LaTeX commands that are specific to these languages and not included in the default TeX input Jax sound more appropriate. peter: good point. I was also thinking about possibly different syntax, say maple, but that's out of the scope anyway.
|
|
|
|
* offer instiki syntax as input -> **not a priority** (instiki never exposes its TeX syntax but converts to MathML). fred: actually instiki just uses itex2MML and I think has an option to use blahtex. Both tools are open source so the syntax is known. peter: true but we should probably open up another section for "input processors"? fred: it's probably overkill to implement input processors for itex2MML or blahtex. They basically rely on the same LaTeX-like syntax as MathJax TeX input processor. Extensions to add LaTeX commands that are specific to these languages and not included in the default TeX input Jax sound more appropriate. peter: good point. I was also thinking about possibly different syntax, say maple, but that's out of the scope anyway. fred: OK, I was really only talking about instiki here (I guess it does not support maple), but opening a section for other input processor too is fine. I haven't seen requests from users for other input processors, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### MathML support
|
|
|
|
|
| ... | ... | |
