From: Frédéric Grosshans <frederic.grosshans_at_gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:49:24 +0000

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:49:24 +0000

Le lun. 10 oct. 2016 22:32, Julian Bradfield <jcb+unicode_at_inf.ed.ac.uk> a

écrit :

*> On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg <haberg-1_at_telia.com> wrote:
*

*> > It is possible to write math just using ASCII and TeX, which was the
*

*> original idea of TeX. Is that want you want for linguistics?
*

*>
*

*> I don't see the need to do everything in plain text. Long ago, I spent
*

*> a great deal of time getting my editor to do semi-wysiwyg TeX maths
*

*> (work later incorporated into x-symbol), but actually it's a waste of
*

*> time and I've given up. Working mathematicians know LaTeX and its control
*

*> sequences. Even my 12-year old uses LaTeX control sequences to
*

*> communicate with his online maths courses.
*

*>
*

I am a physicist regularly using LaTeX. I actually use a LaTeX-based input

method to have plain TeX math when possible. It makes more readable TeX

files and emails, specially when the equations are a bit long. It also save

characters when I livetweet scientific talks (like here

https://twitter.com/fgrosshans/status/780715752752029696)

The possibility to have reasonable plaintext math also helps to have

reasonable results when copypasting an equation from a pdf on a mathjax

enabled website.

Of course, full plaintext math is not possible, and I don't think anyone

reasonable wants a plaintext solution even for something as common as

nested exponents and indices. Rich text formats like TeX have their use

case, but that doesn't mean plain text math, with all its limitations, is

useless.

Frédéric

*>
*

Received on Mon Oct 10 2016 - 16:49:54 CDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0
: Mon Oct 10 2016 - 16:49:54 CDT
*