We had a MathJax question just now that was unceremoniously closed as off topic. As it probably should be. But I feel like we should, if we can, direct the questioner some place elsewhere there might find an answer. I'm asking the community for suggested comments and phrasing.

  • 1
    @Martin: I agree with the answers there. MathJax questions are not off topic if they are about syntax, but are off topic if they are about the JavaScript or HTML side of things. Also, it's not that we don't want to answer questions like that, it's that we don't know the answers to questions like that. – Matthew Leingang Apr 18 '13 at 21:34
  • 2
    It's probably more don't want to answer here really (I'm on the mathjax steering committee (I think:-) so I'm probably supposed to know something about it:-) Good proposed answer by the way. The mj google groups forum is better but politically it's good to mention SO mathjax tag and keep things in the sx world. I usually try to answer mj questions in comments (but then vote to close anyway) – David Carlisle Apr 18 '13 at 22:37
  • 2
    This came up again today with actuarial notation question and again someone downvoted (I upvoted to compensate) downvoting a new user to -ve rep just because he asked a mathjax question seems excessive. – David Carlisle Apr 19 '13 at 9:13
up vote 25 down vote accepted

Here is my proposed answer:

While [tag:MathJax] uses LaTeX syntax, it uses Javascript and HTML's DOM model rather than TeX technology, making it mostly off topic for this site. You might try instead searching among the [questions tagged with mathjax on Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/mathjax), or in the official [mathjax-users](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mathjax-users) Google group.

  • 6
    Good thinking. Why don't you add it to the text building blocks? – jubobs Apr 18 '13 at 15:22
  • 2
    That's the eventual destination, to be sure. I wanted to isolate the discussion around this particular building block first. There being no objection, I will probably integrate it soon. – Matthew Leingang Apr 18 '13 at 17:15
  • This is inline with the existing tag wiki so I don't think there can be any objection to it really (the fact that people post here despite the tag wiki suggests perhaps they are not as visible as they might be) – David Carlisle Apr 18 '13 at 22:40
  • Maybe better, instead of "it is not TeX/LaTeX...", but "it uses Javascript and HTML's DOM model rather than TeX technology, making it mostly off topic...". I edited the Mathjax tag wiki along these lines; my edit is in the queue. – Charles Stewart Apr 19 '13 at 8:07
  • I've gone ahead and edited the building block question with the snippet above. If anyone wants to edit further just go there. – Matthew Leingang Apr 19 '13 at 12:31
  • A minor comment: the word "instead" is misspelled "insteead". Same typo also occurred in the Text building blocks post – Herr K. Apr 21 '13 at 18:19
  • 1
    @KevinC: thanks. I updated the building blocks post. – Matthew Leingang Apr 21 '13 at 20:02
  • Shouldn't we extend that "Text Building Block" to MathML too? See this MathML question, for instance. – jubobs May 18 '13 at 17:37
  • IMO That is a separate block. But same language: although TeX and MathML are both used for math, MathML is off topic, try these places instead. – Matthew Leingang May 18 '13 at 22:12
  • Stack Overflow is two words. – TRiG Apr 3 '15 at 11:16
  • @TRiG: so edited (and on the building blocks meta post). – Matthew Leingang Apr 7 '15 at 23:13
  • @E.P.: updated. – Matthew Leingang Jul 5 '16 at 17:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .