3

Hi to all and sorry if the question is off topic, but I do not know where do it.

Usually, when we talk about equations in LaTeX, Why, we must do an upload of an image to explain the result.

In my opinion it is better and more faster for all, use the site for showing the effect of the code.

I do not ask a LaTeX interpreter on line "all inclusive", but if it is possible... :-)

||||||
  • 4
    See for example meta.tex.stackexchange.com/questions/181/…: we want to see what TeX really does in an example, not what some JavaScript which works in an entirely different way does. – Joseph Wright Feb 20 '15 at 16:43
  • 2
    BTW, equations are a pretty small part of what we cover! – Joseph Wright Feb 20 '15 at 16:44
  • 1
  • OK, OK, I'm reading. :-) And I note what in Italy we call "conflict of interest". – Giacomo Alessandroni Feb 20 '15 at 16:48
  • 2
    @GiacomoAlessandroni We want to see the exact output from TeX and not the approximate representation produced by MathJax. And we need to see the code. – egreg Feb 20 '15 at 16:50
  • @egreg You have completely reason. I'm sorry. – Giacomo Alessandroni Feb 20 '15 at 16:52
  • 1
    This boils down to the fact that MathJax is not TeX. MathJax uses TeX's syntax since so many of its users would already be familiar with it, but it isn't TeX. Moreover, the process of compiling a whole document is relatively slow compared to MathJax's subset -- there are lots of other things at play. It would not be reasonable to embed a source -> PDF -> PNG workflow for the site; it would slow to a crawl. – Sean Allred Feb 20 '15 at 22:08
  • Though, there is something to be said for an official workflow that is supported from the web. Perhaps one of the online compilers would be willing to help us out. – Sean Allred Feb 20 '15 at 22:10

Browse other questions tagged .