Re: scientific publishing process (was Re: Cost and access)

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> writes:
> However, my point was not about looking good.  It was about being able to see
> the paper in the way that the author intended. 

Yes, I understand this. It's not something that I consider at all
important, which perhaps represents our different view points. Readers
have different preferences. I prefer reading in inverse video; I like to
be able to change font size to zoom in and out. I quite like fixed width
fonts. Other people like the two column thing. Other people want things
read to them.

Who cares what the authors intend? I mean, they are not reading the
paper, are they?


> I do write papers with considerable math in them, so my experience may
> not be typical, but whenever I have tried to produce HTML versions of
> my papers, I have ended up quite frustrated because even I cannot get
> them to display the way I want them to.

I've been using mathjax on my website for a long time and it seems to
work well, although I am not maths heavy.


> It may be that there are now good tools for producing HTML that carries the
> intent of the author.  htlatex has been mentioned in this thread.  A solution
> that uses htlatex would have the benefit of building on much of the work that
> has been done to make latex a reasonable technology for producing papers.  If
> someone wants to create the necessary infrastructure to make htlatex work as
> well as pdflatex does, then feel free.

It's more to make htlatex work as well as lncs.sty works. htlatex
produces reasonable, if dull, HTML of the bat.

Phil

Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 15:29:55 UTC