Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #145637 > unrolled thread

LaTeX in Pages

Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac

Contents

  LaTeX in Pages Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-20 11:58 +0000
    Re: LaTeX in Pages richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2020-07-20 14:13 +0000
      Re: LaTeX in Pages Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2020-07-21 22:30 +0100
    Re: LaTeX in Pages Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2020-07-20 15:20 +0100
      Re: LaTeX in Pages Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2020-07-20 20:55 +0000
    Re: LaTeX in Pages nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2020-07-20 22:21 +0200
      Re: LaTeX in Pages richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2020-07-20 21:08 +0000
        Re: LaTeX in Pages nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2020-07-22 10:36 +0200
          Re: LaTeX in Pages Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-07-22 10:26 +0100

#145637 — LaTeX in Pages

What an interesting throwback. When you go to Insert/Equation, Pages accepts
it in either LaTeX or MathML.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
d> It's OK. I'm an atheist catholic.
g> So you just feel guilty for /no readily apparent reason/.
                        - deKay and Gareth Halfacree, ugvm

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#145643

In article <hnlf6eF2fc2U5@mid.individual.net>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh  <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>What an interesting throwback. When you go to Insert/Equation, Pages accepts
>it in either LaTeX or MathML.

That's not a throwback.  Latex syntax is what people who make serious
use of formulae use.  Even Microsoft Word supports it, so I'm told.

-- Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145708

On 20/07/2020 15:13, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <hnlf6eF2fc2U5@mid.individual.net>,
> Jaimie Vandenbergh  <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>> What an interesting throwback. When you go to Insert/Equation, Pages accepts
>> it in either LaTeX or MathML.
> 
> That's not a throwback.  Latex syntax is what people who make serious
> use of formulae use.  Even Microsoft Word supports it, so I'm told.

One gotcha to be careful of with Pages is that it converts LaTeX into 
inline PDF images. Opening or converting to Word loses the link to the 
original LaTeX and you are left with lots of small images that can no 
longer be edited.

Word only supports LaTeX in the sense that the auto-correct feature 
works inside the equation editor and auto-corrects LaTeX keywords into 
whatever Word uses internally.

-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145644

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> What an interesting throwback. When you go to Insert/Equation, Pages accepts
> it in either LaTeX or MathML.

I'm sure there are mathematicians who think in \frac{}{} in their sleep.
This one does it live in lectures:
https://castel.dev/post/lecture-notes-1/#vim-and-latex

Theo

\lim_{\to \infty_{and beyond}}

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145661

On 20 Jul 2020 at 15:20:57 BST, "Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>> What an interesting throwback. When you go to Insert/Equation, Pages accepts
>> it in either LaTeX or MathML.
> 
> I'm sure there are mathematicians who think in \frac{}{} in their sleep.
> This one does it live in lectures:
> https://castel.dev/post/lecture-notes-1/#vim-and-latex
> 
> Theo
> 
> \lim_{\to \infty_{and beyond}}


OMG!!! Just when you think you are getting better at Emacs and LaTeX together
a smartypants like Gilles Castel makes you feel like a kindergarten dropout.
How the hell can he type lecture notes like that and understand the lecturer
simultaneously? Chapeau!!
-- 
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810  E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145656

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> What an interesting throwback. When you go to Insert/Equation, Pages accepts
> it in either LaTeX or MathML.

MathML is a disaster area.
It should never have been developed.
You may find a suitable example for the why of it in
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Markup_Language>

From there:
Compare 

x = \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a},

which any mathematician will read without breaking step
with the equivalant:

<math>
 <mrow>
  <mi>x</mi>
  <mo>=</mo>
  <mfrac>
    <mrow>
      <mrow>
        <mo>-</mo>
        <mi>b</mi>
      </mrow>
      <mo>&PlusMinus;</mo>
      <msqrt>
        <mrow>
          <msup>
            <mi>b</mi>
            <mn>2</mn>
          </msup>
          <mo>-</mo>
          <mrow>
            <mn>4</mn>
            <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
            <mi>a</mi>
            <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
            <mi>c</mi>
          </mrow>
        </mrow>
      </msqrt>
    </mrow>
    <mrow>
      <mn>2</mn>
      <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
      <mi>a</mi>
    </mrow>
  </mfrac>
 </mrow>
</math>

which no one will read at a glance.
And this is only a very simple formula.

Summary: MathML is an abomination that is a disaster even for web pages,
and quite unusable by itself for any serious work.

Fortunately there are (La)TeX to MathML converters,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145662

In article <1otv1d3.1w4clpliquyzbN@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
J. J. Lodder <jjlxa31@xs4all.nl> wrote:

><math>
> <mrow>
>  <mi>x</mi>
>  <mo>=</mo>
>  <mfrac>
>    <mrow>
>      <mrow>
>        <mo>-</mo>
>        <mi>b</mi>
>      </mrow>
>      <mo>&PlusMinus;</mo>
>      <msqrt>
>        <mrow>
>          <msup>
>            <mi>b</mi>
>            <mn>2</mn>
>          </msup>
>          <mo>-</mo>
>          <mrow>
>            <mn>4</mn>
>            <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
>            <mi>a</mi>
>            <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
>            <mi>c</mi>
>          </mrow>
>        </mrow>
>      </msqrt>
>    </mrow>
>    <mrow>
>      <mn>2</mn>
>      <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
>      <mi>a</mi>
>    </mrow>
>  </mfrac>
> </mrow>
></math>
>
>which no one will read at a glance.
>And this is only a very simple formula.
>
>Summary: MathML is an abomination that is a disaster even for web pages,
>and quite unusable by itself for any serious work.

Clearly it's not ideal for typing in, but it's a perfectly good
structural representation.

>Fortunately there are (La)TeX to MathML converters,

Exactly.

-- Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145711

Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> In article <1otv1d3.1w4clpliquyzbN@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> J. J. Lodder <jjlxa31@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> ><math>
> > <mrow>
> >  <mi>x</mi>
> >  <mo>=</mo>
> >  <mfrac>
> >    <mrow>
> >      <mrow>
> >        <mo>-</mo>
> >        <mi>b</mi>
> >      </mrow>
> >      <mo>&PlusMinus;</mo>
> >      <msqrt>
> >        <mrow>
> >          <msup>
> >            <mi>b</mi>
> >            <mn>2</mn>
> >          </msup>
> >          <mo>-</mo>
> >          <mrow>
> >            <mn>4</mn>
> >            <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
> >            <mi>a</mi>
> >            <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
> >            <mi>c</mi>
> >          </mrow>
> >        </mrow>
> >      </msqrt>
> >    </mrow>
> >    <mrow>
> >      <mn>2</mn>
> >      <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
> >      <mi>a</mi>
> >    </mrow>
> >  </mfrac>
> > </mrow>
> ></math>
> >
> >which no one will read at a glance.
> >And this is only a very simple formula.
> >
> >Summary: MathML is an abomination that is a disaster even for web pages,
> >and quite unusable by itself for any serious work.
> 
> Clearly it's not ideal for typing in, but it's a perfectly good
> structural representation.
> 
> >Fortunately there are (La)TeX to MathML converters,
> 
> Exactly.

It does show html for the disaster that it is.
Knut is a great programmer, Berners-Lee is an amateuristic bungler.

In a good system such as TeX content and layout are separate things,
as they should. HTML is a mess throughout,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145715

On 22 Jul 2020, J. J. Lodder wrote
(in article<1otxszp.9psk6e1ybuq6pN@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):

> It does show html for the disaster that it is.
> Knut is a great programmer, Berners-Lee is an amateuristic bungler.
>
> In a good system such as TeX content and layout are separate things,
> as they should. HTML is a mess throughout,

<ahem>.

HTML is a bastardised SGML. In SGML, content and layout -are- different 
things. HTML started out as a quick’n’dirty non-conforming SGML DTD, and 
never improved from there.

But that was kinda sorta fine, because it was absolutely intended to be quick 
and dirty. It’s when people came back and started retrofitting standards to 
it etc. that all the heavyweight junk took over. Then CSS appeared, and that 
improved things (sorry, I am really trying to keep a straight face typing 
that, I promise) by separating layout from content again.

The other problem is the web got into the hands of designers. They understood 
the printed page. They did -not- understand device independence and 
information-centric not presentation-centric. So people started nocking up 
page designs like a magazine and going “exactly like that please”. This 
further screwed up the original intention, and the situation has only got 
worse from there (Apple actually being a chief offender here, and going so 
far as to hijack the meaning of ’scroll’, for gawd’s sake).

Summary: Well, you wouldn’t start from here...

Cheers,
Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac

csiph-web