[tex4ht] [bug #274] tex4ht features vs. lwarp vs. ...

[William F Hammond]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Michal wrote, quoting CVR:

> The user needs to tag math as $a_{\mathbf{n}}$ for perfect MathML output
> > without intervention.  Another common example found in documents is $(a
> > ....$), this would be passed by TeX, but not MathML since the closing
> > parenthesis is outside math. Prof William Hammond has been campaigning
> for
> > profiled LaTeX for several years now, but many users are hardly bothered
> > since they expect other systems to adopt to their non-standard tagging
> > methods. This can only result in a frustrating experience with tex4ht
> > unfortunately.
> >
>
> We can educate users who actively wants to convert their documents,
> they really need to understand the nature of HTML and MathML in order
> to produce valid output. Flexibility of TeX if generally good thing
> and feature, only the abusing users are problem :)
>

Most of us read documentation and instructions as little as possible.
Moreover, there is a low level of language inconsistency in free-ranging
use of TeX markup.

For that reason I think the only way to 'educate' users is to provide a
layer of (1) syntax enforcement and (2) source validation under a suitable
LaTeX profile.

With tex4ht I think the way to do that is first, regardless of final output
format (and like latexml), to make an xml (or sgml for more 'power')
document under a suitable tex4ht LaTeX profile.  Use XSLT or a standard
sgml library (for more power) like sgmlspl (perl) or OpenSP (C++) to
translate the profiled document to whatever end format.

                      -- Bill

-- 
William F Hammond
Email: gellmu at gmail.com
https://www.facebook.com/william.f.hammond
http://www.albany.edu/~hammond/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/tex4ht/attachments/20160330/0808c296/attachment.html>