On 07/10/2021 20:05, Timothy wrote:
Org should rewrite < and > to < and > to avoid broken HTML, or as < and
in general.
I think we’ve drifted a bit to the differences in processing (where the `\( ...
\)'
vs `$ ... $' comments are most pertinent), but as you say for valid HTML < and >
should be rewritten. I don’t think I’ve seen an issue because MathJax seems to
take care of it, but it looks like MathJax is also fine with < and &rt;.
"<" and ">" characters are valid only markup elements in HTML (part of
tags, comments). MathJax interprets text content. Normally, to add text
"<" or ">", "<" or ">" should be used in HTML sources. Browsers
may pass "<" and ">" from source to text content if they are totally
confused by invalid markup that does not resemble tags or something
else. I do not think, it should be abused.
I cited MathJax docs just to show a temporary workaround till the bug
will be fixed in Org. It is quite strange that Org properly converts
"<>&" to entities in text but leaves them as is in math snippets. Unsure
whether git history might clarify some reasons of such behavior.
On 06/10/2021 14:39, Rudolf Adamkovič wrote
I wrote the following: "[…] every term $t\in{}q$ with $idf(t)>c$ for
some constant $c$ […]", and the "idf(t) > c" part got exported as
"idf(t)". I cannot fix the paper at this point. Uh-oh!
If you submitted HTML file, you might suggest to open sources to make it
obvious that the mistake was not intentional.
"$idf(t)>c$" means "i*d*f(t) > c". A bit more markup required to make
"idf" typed in straight font instead of italics and to avoid additional
space between characters.
It is matter of taste, but "{}" after "\in" looks a bit strange for me.
"$t\in q$ is even shorter, "$t \in q$", having the same length, is more
readable from my point of view.