Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/johnband/sbbs.johnband.org/index.php:1) in /home/johnband/sbbs.johnband.org/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: Web idiocy http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/09/web-idiocy/ As fair-minded and non-partisan as Torquemada. Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:16:20 +0000 hourly 1 By: Matt http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/09/web-idiocy/#comment-635 Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:31:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=435#comment-635 Hmm, I’ve never brought myself to post to John’s blog before, but this is about maths, so I’m vaguely qualified to make a point. I have to agree with Chris: turning LaTeX into HTML always looks a mess, and it just gets worse and worse the more equations you enter. MathML, for all the hype, doesn’t seem to work much better for anything beyond "school-level" maths.

However, having looked at the PDF, and given that it’s an "introduction", I suppose there is some arguement for converting it to HTML. However, most of the stuff on the ArXiV would look horrible in HTML format.

What about converting each page to a big PNG/GIF file? Maybe bandwidth issues mean that they don’t want to give this option, but it would be a half-way house for lazy people like John.

–Matt

]]>
By: Chris Lightfoot http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/09/web-idiocy/#comment-629 Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:06:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=435#comment-629 Turning TeX into HTML isn’t very easy ([La]TeX is much more expressive, both semantically and typographically). There are lots of half-arsed "solutions" to do it; I’m not surprised that arXiv.org have sensibly decided to ignore all of them.

]]>
By: Chris Lightfoot http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/09/web-idiocy/#comment-624 Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:10:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=435#comment-624 Turning TeX into HTML isn’t very easy ([La]TeX is much more expressive, both semantically and typographically). There are lots of half-arsed "solutions" to do it; I’m not surprised that arXiv.org have sensibly decided to ignore all of them.

]]>
By: john b http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/09/web-idiocy/#comment-622 Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:50:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=435#comment-622 True. Still, Video 2000 is a technically better standard than VHS, and it would have been better had domestic videotape been based on it. Yet I’d be similarly irritated if someone offered me a V2000 tape of an interesting-sounding TV programme.

Given how trivial it is to convert word processed documents to HTML (no, I don’t mean by using Word’s ‘save as some bizarre XML hybrid which definitely isn’t HTML’ function), and to display equations as monochrome GIFs, it seems like a bizarre thing not to offer alongside all the other display options.

]]>
By: Chris Lightfoot http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/09/web-idiocy/#comment-621 Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:59:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=435#comment-621 I think that’s unfair. Firstly, DVI etc. are a lot better for expressing equations, which is something that paper needs; and secondly, DVI long predates HTML, and, frankly, is a much better format. If the web had been based on LaTeX and DVI, we’d be in much less of a mess than we are now.

]]>