cben
May 28, 2019, 12:11pm
3
There have been previous discussions:
Perhaps fences ```` and ~~~~ should differ slightly from each other: one is always displayed verbatim (plus syntax highlighting etc.), while the other should be parser into something more useful if safe and possible. Users would specify the language as the first part the info string as is common practice for source code.
~~~~ tex
x^2
~~~~
.
<figure class="formula">
<var>x</var><sup>2</sup>
</figure>
```` tex
x^2
````
.
<pre><code class="language-tex">x^2</code></pre>
This does not prevent ext…
I’m sure that this wouldn’t be to popular for the diehard mathematicians, as they all swear by using LaTeX, which can be converted to HTML by MathJax.
That’s probably similar to that there will always be people that swear by using HTML even if they have the option to use Markdown. But for people that just sometimes want to use a little bit of mathematics in their markdown chat/discussion/article/blogpost etc. having a mathematics extension to markdown could be quite useful.
I’m thinking about …
I am writing a lot of blog articles about computer science / mathematics. This means I want formulas to be rendered in a similar way like TeX does it. I don’t expect CommonMark to specify / implement this (although it would be nice). I just would appreciate it, if CommonMark would not mess with blocks of TeX-like math.
Example
The source
This is a set: \(A = \{1,2\}\)
gets transferred into
<p>This is a set: (A = {1,2})</p>
whereas I would like it to be
<p>This is a set: \(A = \{1,2\}\)</p>
…
Math extensions are widely implemented , but there is unfortunately no consensus on the syntax. If you want to discuss, let’s continue one of the above threads.
2 Likes