3 ms·

You should think of MathML like SVG. Most people use equation editors (a la Inkscape for SVGs) or a library (d3) that outputs MathML that you can include in you

You should think of MathML like SVG. Most people use equation editors (a la Inkscape for SVGs) or a library (d3) that outputs MathML that you can include in your website. You also have the option to write simple equations by hand, but most people won’t.

thayne 6y ago
The verbosity of MathML also has costs in terms of bandwidth (although that is mitigated by compression) and likely parsing speed.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago
  Actually MathML is much simpler to parse: it's already parsed, what you get is basically an AST in XML.
monadic2 6y ago
That's a problem for mathml. The more required tooling, the less likely it is to be used. TeX hits this weird sweet spot between writing code and writing a document that's very productive.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Then use a library that converts TeX into MathML. I can recommend TeXZilla[1] (the author is also a major contributor to the MathML stadard). <p> The triangle inequality states that <la-tex>z \leq x + y</la-tex>. </p> Disclosure: I am my self an author of an alternative library MathUp[2]. 1: http://fred-wang.github.io/TeXZilla/ http://fred-wang.github.io/TeXZilla/ 2: https://runarberg.github.io/mathup/ https://runarberg.github.io/mathup/
  - thayne 6y ago
    That still requires more tooling.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      It is a little unfair since LaTeX has tons of extra libraries involved. It’s probably been more than 5 years since I touched LaTeX, but I usually (if I remember correctly) used amsmath, babel, biblatex, inputenc, fontenc, hyperref before I even started. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask authors that insist on writing in familiar syntax, that they use a tool that enables that. With native MathML authors are free to use whichever tool chain they prefer. Some authors will prefer graphical editing of equations, so they have their authoring tools set up that way. Others will just want to write their familiar latex syntax so they’ll put a: <script src="./path/to/texzilla.js"></script> in their document and write as before.

thayne 6y ago

The verbosity of MathML also has costs in terms of bandwidth (although that is mitigated by compression) and likely parsing speed.

Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago
Actually MathML is much simpler to parse: it's already parsed, what you get is basically an AST in XML.

monadic2 6y ago

That's a problem for mathml. The more required tooling, the less likely it is to be used. TeX hits this weird sweet spot between writing code and writing a document that's very productive.

runarberg 6y ago
Then use a library that converts TeX into MathML. I can recommend TeXZilla[1] (the author is also a major contributor to the MathML stadard). <p> The triangle inequality states that <la-tex>z \leq x + y</la-tex>. </p> Disclosure: I am my self an author of an alternative library MathUp[2]. 1: http://fred-wang.github.io/TeXZilla/ http://fred-wang.github.io/TeXZilla/ 2: https://runarberg.github.io/mathup/ https://runarberg.github.io/mathup/
- thayne 6y ago
  That still requires more tooling.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    It is a little unfair since LaTeX has tons of extra libraries involved. It’s probably been more than 5 years since I touched LaTeX, but I usually (if I remember correctly) used amsmath, babel, biblatex, inputenc, fontenc, hyperref before I even started. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask authors that insist on writing in familiar syntax, that they use a tool that enables that. With native MathML authors are free to use whichever tool chain they prefer. Some authors will prefer graphical editing of equations, so they have their authoring tools set up that way. Others will just want to write their familiar latex syntax so they’ll put a: <script src="./path/to/texzilla.js"></script> in their document and write as before.