11–20 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer the $ $ way, as it makes it possible to do inline equations, while keeping the source easily readable.
you can do both, the normal markdown way: `$a$` squared is `$a^2$`, which is good to know for the pythagorean theorem: ```equation a^2+b^2\eq c^2 ```
I know this is a common view, but this is such a strange mindset to me. Unless you add scope, a project is eventually just mostly done. It's not that MathJax has zero commits, it just has fewer. That _in itself_ isn't a bad sign to me. It could just mean it's a mature project.
A source block type would have been a very natural fit, it’s surprising that isn’t how they chose to go. ```equation e^{i\pi}+1\eq0 ``` feels like what i’d try to do right off the bat.
I agree the code block approach would be less ambiguous, but there is an advantage in going where people already are.
A source block type would have been a very natural fit, it’s surprising that isn’t how they chose to go. ```equation e^{i\pi}+1\eq0 ``` feels like what i’d try to do right off the bat.
A code block is used to display text literally, except adding syntax coloring. You would use it to display TeX source notation for example. A math block transforms TeX into something else, it's entirely different. I think it's correct that they did not use the code block syntax for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer the $ $ way, as it makes it possible to do inline equations, while keeping the source easily readable.
you can do both, the normal markdown way: `$a$` squared is `$a^2$`, which is good to know for the pythagorean theorem: ```equation a^2+b^2\eq c^2 ```
Because some of these critiques really should have been dealt with beforehand and I'm concerned that we're now stuck with lousy defaults that they won't ever be able to change.
The visual font size problem seems particularly disastrous:
> The math font is a really small,
> MathJax’s default font MJXTEX-I and GitHub’s default text Helvetica have a different x-height/cap-height ratio.
I don't understand how Github could launch this feature with this problem unaddressed. LaTeX isn't just about getting formulas right, it's about communicating ideas.
Did Github ever solicit feedback from the community for this feature? Was there ever a beta before they rolled it out? Because some of these critiques really should have been dealt with beforehand and I'm concerned that we're now stuck with lousy defaults that they won't ever be able to change. The visual font size problem seems particularly disastrous: > The math font is a really small, > MathJax’s default font MJXT…
Did Github ever solicit feedback from the community for this feature? Was there ever a beta before they rolled it out? Because some of these critiques really should have been dealt with beforehand and I'm concerned that we're now stuck with lousy defaults that they won't ever be able to change. The visual font size problem seems particularly disastrous: > The math font is a really small, > MathJax’s default font MJXT…
Small font size seems the easiest to fix. Kerning seems worse since people will manually tweak spacing with \, etc, so you can't just change it whenever you want.
However, even if it's theoretically possible to change the font size, would Github ever do so? My impression is that as an organization they place a high value on interface stability. Very little about how I interact with the site has ever changed.
I suppose that individual publishers might stick in a hack to increase the font size, but a bad default means that as a consumer, I'll be stuck looking at tiny math on Github for the vast majority of documents.