On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 11:21:15AM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 01:56:05AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > LaTeX is not very practical to write program documentation. Texinfo is
> > not so good at math and bibliography. However, when you need both, for
> > instance when you
Does tex4ht ever produce acceptible output?
Certainly. Many people use it for complex math-heavy documents.
But, as far as I know, they are all in LaTeX, which is where essentially
all the work has gone for years now, since that's where the users are.
I don't believe anyone has tried the Texi
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 11:21:15AM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
>
> Does tex4ht ever produce acceptible output? I tried it with the
> simple input
>
> @math{a^2 + c + {b \over d} + \sqrt{42}}
>
> and it gives me the output
>
>a2 + c + b
> d + √
> _42
>
>
> which is no good whatsoever. Ma
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 01:56:05AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> LaTeX is not very practical to write program documentation. Texinfo is
> not so good at math and bibliography. However, when you need both, for
> instance when you write a manual for a program dealing with mathematics,
> I find Texi
