MathJax Compiler in LaTex

[Philip Taylor (Hellenic Institute)]

Olivier Nicole wrote:
> [...] I simply used this as an argument to say that it stands to 
> reason that the implementation of MathJax must be different from that 
> of TeX, since it has to support a different set of primitive constructs.
I respectfully disagree.  Which is not to suggest that I believe that 
the implementation of MathJax is necessarily the same as that of TeX (I 
have no idea whether it is or not), merely that I challenge the 
assertions on which I believe your argument to is based.

For a start, why do you assert that "[MathJax] has to support a 
different set of primitive constructs" ?  Why must they be /primitive/ 
constructs ?  If MathJax were/is the same as that of TeX, then those 
constructs could be handled by a format file.

As to "the MathML specification describes a few mathematical elements 
that, in (La)TeX, would require to use a dedicated package", there would 
be no requirement for "a dedicated package" at all — a competent (La)TeX 
programmer could write code to handle those elements without needing any 
extra package(s).

The defence rests.
-- 
/Philip Taylor/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/attachments/20220205/0e3b1bd6/attachment.html>