#+options: tex:dvipng is not good because it turns all your latex symbol
markup into images, which are inserted into the web page as images, i.e.,
it's not doing MathJax. Also bad because they don't really fit the text
lines, either. I use

# this makes MathJax work
#+OPTIONS: tex:t

I just now found this caption weirdness because I started a new .org file
with no latex symbol markup besides in the caption. Quite bizarre that when
my file sees other latex symbols, the caption symbols then render
correctly.

BTW: What does

executing Scheme code block (square)...
=> #<void>
org-babel-script-escape: ‘org-babel-script-escape’ expects a string

mean? I'm suddenly getting this in an org file which has scheme babel code
blocks, images, and lots of latex symbol markup. It first popped up when I
tried to C-c C-c a scheme code block.






On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Nick Dokos <ndo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Lawrence Bottorff <borg...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Consider this markup:
> >>
> >> ------------
> >> * MATHEMATICS AUXILIARY
> >>
> >> ** deriving sines and cosines
> >>
> >> #+caption: Right triangle with two $\pi\big/4$ angles.
> >> [[file:images/45-45-triangle.png]]
> >>
> >> $\big/$
> >> ------------
> >>
> >> If I remove the second $\big/$, the first latex, $\pi\big/4$, in the
> >> caption will not properly render on export to html. Include it and both
> >> render just fine. Without the second, the first looks like this:
> >>
> >> Figure 1: Right triangle with two \(\pi\big/4\) angles.
> >>
> >> Is this a bug?
> >
> > If you use
> >
> >   #+options: tex:dvipng
> >
> > the symbol in the caption is correctly rendered. It may be a bug in
> Mathjax.
> >
>
> I looked at the diff between html files produced with and without the
> $\big/$ addition.
> The one without does not include any of the mathjax configuration code at
> all. Is that
> code included conditionally perhaps when a latex construct is seen? Maybe
> the latex construct
> in the caption does not trigger the inclusion?
>
> --
> Nick
>
>
>

Reply via email to