[whatwg] Mathematics in HTML5

[James Graham]

juanrgonzaleza at canonicalscience.com wrote:

> LaTeX is *not* the preferred format for submissions in Physical Review
> journals (Letters and A, B, C, D, and E versions). 

 From their guidelines for authors [1]:

"Acceptable formats for the discount or waiver are currently REVTeX (preferred), 
LaTeX, Harvmac, Plain TeX, or MSWord"

 From the REVTeX page:
"The following design principles were incorporated into REVTeX 4:

     * Make REVTeX fully compatible with LaTeX2e."

So I presume you are misinformed or I am looking in the wrong place. (Note for 
the interested: harvmac seems to be another TeX dialect, so all the acceptable 
hand-authored formats are TeX-based)

> That TeX-LaTeX is not
> sufficient for the web is also recogined even by TeX gurus as David
> Carlisle [1].

Note that I have never advocated putting TeX directly on the web. I'm merely 
stating that simple conversion from LaTeX will be an important feature of any 
successful format.

> Do you know that LaTeX3 is moving towards SGML/HTML model of publications
> in some aspects?

Excellent. Maybe if people move to LaTeX 3 for their offline work, it will be 
easier to get maths online. (Side note: HTML is not SGML and has not been since 
at least the Netscape 3 days). I certainly don't have any issue if LaTeX can 
meet HTML half way, allowing people to take small steps toward mathematics on 
the web rather than the "one giant leap" that you propose.

>>> Some weeks ago I received a draft of manuscript prepared by a
>>> mathematician and will probably be published in MSOR journal in brief.
>>> He is not using TeX or LateX because limitations and write:
>>>
>>> <blockquote>
>>> Mathematicians have been served well by TeX and LaTeX for their
>>> mathematical typesetting. Too well, perhaps. At least, if an dedicated
>>> TeXnician of the last
>>> ten years has a chance to \relax and look about himself he will see
>>> that the rest
>>> of the world has moved on in several incompatible ways to the cosy
>>> world of TeX.
>>> </blockquote>
> 
>> Why should I listen to this person?
> 
> End of debate. Why would I pay attention you?

As far as I can tell, you don't. But, irrespective of that, it's an honest 
question. Just citing anonymous sources doesn't make for a credible argument. 
Why is this person's opinion so worthwhile that you quoted him at me? What are 
these ways? It's not a helpful contribution to the discussion.

[1] http://authors.aps.org/ESUB/

-- 
"You see stars that clear have been dead for years
But the idea just lives on..." -- Bright Eyes