At this moment the standard way for mathematical expression is then to use @math{} and @displaymath{}.
I wonder what would happen to the following @tex \def\Exp{\mathop{\rm exp}} \def\Mod#1{\left| #1 \right|} \def\Expf#1{\Exp \left[ #1 \right]} \def\Angf{\omega = 2 \pi \nu} \def\Gm{\gamma} \vskip 0.3cm $\underline{\bf Gaussian\; Function}$ $$ W^G_t(t',\nu) = {\Mod{\nu} \over \sqrt{2 \pi}}\; \Expf{-\nu^2 (t-t')^2 \over 2} $$ $$ W^G_t(t',\omega) = {1 \over 2 \pi} {\left| \omega \right| \over \sqrt{2 \pi}}\; {\rm exp} \left[ {-\omega^2 (t-t')^2 \over 8 \pi^2} \right] \,,\quad \Angf $$ @end tex My impression is that we will have multitudes of @math{} and @displaymath as it would not be possible to group things between $ and $$. What would be the way forward? > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 at 9:12 PM > From: "Gavin Smith" <gavinsmith0...@gmail.com> > To: "Christopher Dimech" <dim...@gmx.com> > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" <help-texinfo@gnu.org> > Subject: Re: Paper Sizes > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 09:04:13PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > Dear Gavin, > > > > Have tried it and approve of the results. Currently my manual uses > > @math{}, @tex (with both inline $ and display $$ modes). > > > > That's how I generate my pdf file. Can we safely say that I may use > > @math{} and @displaymath in my manual so I can generate any kind of > > mathematical expression, for both dvi and pdf formats, and html? > > Yes, it works with dvi and pdf too. > > > Thusly I would think that @tex becomes irrelevant, because one > > would want mathematical expressions in both printed manuals > > and html using the same construct. > > For math formatting, yes. > > > If you ask me I rather have @tex (for plain tex only) and @latex > > (for latex commands) and texi2any can take care on whatever output > > the user wants. > > That's not so easy. >