Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Scholarly Markdown

scholarlymarkdown.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 97 posts

Re: A Scholarly Markdown

#41

Post by onalark »

stared wrote: post #6

This thing is certainly needed (vide this discussion: https://hackpad.com/New-scientific-markup-language-utAjFcYuv... ), but what would be really convincing is examples (or I am missing them?). As a side note, a lot of Markdown + LaTeX + Code can be done in IPython Notebook. (Though, there are some things absent, like referencing citations or other equations).

Yes, but it's not ideal. Since everything is done through Javascript, we have to first identify all the math, then hide it from the Markdown parser, then parse the Markdown, then restore the math, then call MathJax on the now-HTML. Equation references/numbering exist, but are turned off by default. It's a minor change to your MathJax configuration to enable.

Re: A Scholarly Markdown

#42

Post by zzleeper »

This looks very interesting but I have a problem with this. I think MOST of these features could have been build just with clever uses of Pandoc filters. This means that i) it's fully compatible ii) it's very easy to extend

Re: A Scholarly Markdown

#43

Post by zzleeper »

j2kun wrote: post #40

If you want me (as an academic) to use ScholarlyMarkdown, then you can't force my collaborators to use ScholarlyMarkdown as a consequence. There should be a nice ScholarlyMarkdown -> LaTeX cross compiler for starting simple documents in TeX and then sharing with collaborators (pick some obvious defaults or allow a config file to get fancy). But more importantly, if I am joining a project that already has a bunch of L…

My guess is that he is building the PDFs through latex/xetex.

I built something similar to that, but instead of forking Pandoc (and investing the time to learn Haskell), I just added filters through Python. It's not at fast, but you can intercept mostly anything.

Thus, the flow ends up as:

paper.md -> Pandoc -> paper.json + metadata -> paper.tex -> paper.pdf

Re: A Scholarly Markdown

#44

Post by zzleeper »

aaren wrote: post #11
kazagistar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was my first thought as well. Pandoc has a rather excellent infrastructure in place to let you extend and build on it, so if you instead choose to fork, there better be a good reason...

Pandoc filters let you do a lot of things provided you stick to the defined types. If you want to add new types of element, like this does, then the only practical way is a fork. (except for really simple cases)

However, in most cases you could just RawBlock (or was it BlockQuote?) with specific attributes, and then intercept those in a filter and convert to Latex.

Re: A Scholarly Markdown

#45

Post by mturmon »

sjy wrote: post #32
mturmon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It allows you to focus on your content (one feature of Markdown) while still being able to write mathematics." That's what LaTeX does too. Its markup, generally, is semantic.

In my experience LaTeX is quite poor at separating content from presentation, at least when you're unwilling to rely on the default styles. All the layout commands are context-sensitive, so I often end up writing presentation code in the middle of my content, or accidentally breaking the layout by moving content around.

You should be putting your alternate style in a .cls file and not inline. If you are super picky about format, then none of these tools are for you.

Re: A Scholarly Markdown

#46

Post by j2kun »

zzleeper wrote: post #43
j2kun wrote: post #40

If you want me (as an academic) to use ScholarlyMarkdown, then you can't force my collaborators to use ScholarlyMarkdown as a consequence. There should be a nice ScholarlyMarkdown -> LaTeX cross compiler for starting simple documents in TeX and then sharing with collaborators (pick some obvious defaults or allow a config file to get fancy). But more importantly, if I am joining a project that already has a bunch of L…

My guess is that he is building the PDFs through latex/xetex. I built something similar to that, but instead of forking Pandoc (and investing the time to learn Haskell), I just added filters through Python. It's not at fast, but you can intercept mostly anything. Thus, the flow ends up as: paper.md -> Pandoc -> paper.json + metadata -> paper.tex -> paper.pdf

I want the flow to be

paper.tex -> paper.md + metadata ->(merge) paper.tex -> paper.pdf

Re: A Scholarly Markdown

#47

Post by Throwaway90283 »

netheril96 wrote: post #21
ciroduran wrote: post #8

It seems that Markdown is starting to get a lot of disgregated reference implementations. Some months ago some important Markdown users were behind CommonMark ( http://commonmark.org/ ). I'd think that it would be best to join this conversation rather than splintering Markdown even more.

I'm in fundamental disagreement with the principle behind CommonMark. They prioritize standardization over practical usability, and for that reason people will keep splintering markdown. For example, they do not plan to add syntax highlighting blocks (the ```some code``` on GitHub) to their implementation, because they believe that it is outside the scope of markdown. Then, because a lot of people actually need this…

They should concentrate on a wide variety of features and make it modular. That way, I could download a build with bold, italic, and spoiler syntax. Or, someone else could download one with only lists, strikeouts, headings, and math formulas. When you're missing even one feature, people go elsewhere.

Lastly, why is everyone hellbent on following the original syntax like it's the word of God? Anytime I hear someone complain about an issue in Markdown, people point to the 2004 syntax and how it's true to spec. Users don't care, they want something usable. I'd be happy if someone creates a completely new spec, and I never hear the word Markdown again. I'm tired of the same issues being passed down.

Re: A Scholarly Markdown

#49

Post by jauco »

treerex wrote: post #29
lorddoig wrote: post #25

And for everything else, there's AsciiDoc.[0] For an extra five minutes learning you get a boatload (think container ship) more features[1] - it compiles to DocBook: a mature, actually standardised , highly structured format, and from that you get HTML, EPUB, PDF, slideshows, and man pages for free.[0] For math you get MathML, ASCIIMath, and LaTeX (along with a number of ways to render them.) It has a super nice synt…

I have yet to see a good stylesheet for AsciiDoc's DocBook output for creating a decent PDF. Do you have recommendations? I love AsciiDoc, but am only using it to generate HTML right now.

Try asciidoctor and its stylesheets.

Re: A Scholarly Markdown

#50

Post by coned88 »

rhythmvs wrote: post #16

John MacFarlane (Pandoc’s author) is heavily committed to the Common Mark standardization effort of Markdown (in fact he’s the principal designer of the Common Mark spec). Both Common Mark and Pandoc serve different purposes: the first is an initiative to counter fragmentation/balkanization of the Markdown ecosystem and in being so has to reckon with backward compatibility, consensus and adoption. The latter is a doc…

Don't they already use LaTex?
Post reply on HN