3 ms·
This works surprisingly well. If you look into enough dark corners of Unicode, it turns out that you can do a shocking amount of typography, going far beyond th
by gwern 11mo ago
This works surprisingly well. If you look into enough dark corners of Unicode, it turns out that you can do a shocking amount of typography, going far beyond the obvious italics and bolds: https://gwern.net/utext https://gwern.net/utext
In fact, I found that writing as much math as possible in Unicode makes for the best HTML reading experience: it's fast, simple, and looks more natural (avoids font inconsistency and line-height jagginess, among other things). https://gwern.net/design-graveyard#mathjax https://gwern.net/design-graveyard#mathjax
And if you find writing Unicode yourself a pain, you can just ask a LLM to translate from LaTeX to Unicode! https://github.com/gwern/gwern.net/blob/master/build/latex2unicode.py https://github.com/gwern/gwern.net/blob/master/build/latex2u...
- ctenb 11mo agoRegarding typing latex vs unicode, I use WinCompose/XCompose with a list of bindings that include most latex symbols. So instead of \cup I'd type <compose>cup For reference, here is my personal (still evolving) .XCompose https://github.com/chtenb/dotfiles/blob/master/.XCompose https://github.com/chtenb/dotfiles/blob/master/.XCompose