- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:57:48 -0700
- To: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- CC: Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, W3C LOD Mailing List <public-lod@w3.org>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
On 10/06/2014 09:28 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> writes: >>> It does MathML I think, which is then rendered client side. Or you could >>> drop math-mode straight through and render client side with mathjax. >> >> Well, somehow png files are being produced for some math, which is a failure. > > Yeah, you have to tell it to do mathml. The problem is that older > versions of the browsers don't render mathml, and image rendering was > the only option. Well, then someone is going to have to tell people how to do this. What I saw for htlatex was that it just did the right thing. >> I don't know what the way to do this right would be, I just know that the >> >> There are many cases where line breaks and indentation are important for >> understanding. Getting this sort of presentation right in latex is a pain for >> starters, but when it has been done, having the htlatex toolchain mess it up >> is a failure. > > Indeed. I believe that there are plans in future versions of HTML to > introduce a "pre" tag which prefers indentation and line breaks. > > >>> Which gets us back to the chicken and egg situation. I would probably do >>> this; but, at the moment, ESWC and ISWC won't let me submit it. So, I'll >>> end up with the PDF output anyway. >> >> Well, I'm with ESWC and ISWC here. The review process should be designed to >> make reviewing easy for reviewers. > > I *only* use PDF when reviewing. I never use it for viewing anything > else. I only use it for reviewing since I am forced to. > > Experiences differ, so I find this a far from compelling argument. It may not be a compelling argument when choosing between two new alternatives, but it is much more compelling argument against change. >>> This is why it is important that web conferences allow HTML, which is >>> where the argument started. > >> Why? What are the benefits of HTML reviewing, right now? What are the >> benefits of HTML publishing, right now? > > Well, we've been through this before, so I'll not repeat myself. > > Phil > Yes, and I haven't seen any benefits using the current setup. peter
Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 16:58:20 UTC