-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 119
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Latex ams packages #207
Latex ams packages #207
Conversation
… into latex_ams_packages
@chrisbresten, LGTM 1. Just for reference, do you think you can add a link to why just these 3 Footnotes
|
These three packages plus default latex mathmode form the baseline standard math environment that we use in the math community. This convention is reflected in mathjax and katex. neither actually use these packages as they are not latex, rather an emulation of a subset of latex with focus on the math environment. There may be other packages safe to include but you run into the issue of clobbering commands, and potential headaches with dependencies that become less predictable with regards to package manager and distribution idiosyncrasies as you get more adventurous. So there is risk in adding the kitchen sink that warrants more caution. These three dont have those problems as they are from the same org and safe to assume anyone including mathmode will have them in any kind of environment forseeable |
OK, yet you haven't provided any links, so I've done a little research myself and here come my additional questions for you. :)
|
amsthm introduces a popular environment/macro to latex that is used for declaration of theorems. It will not add any functionality unless there is markup syntax added that renders to it. The packages i included are to keep math environment behavior in the latex documents consistent with mathjax behavior. i was making the case that adding these three packages doesnt introduce any risk of breaking anything or alienating any users by including a package they dont have when they dont need it. there are other packages partially emulated in mathjax that might be worth including but i didnt include them because i am not 100% on that. It may be worth detecting their use before including them. I assumed you were referencing this small subset of packages emulated by mathjax. In those terms i am not operating off of referenced second hand knowledge in this decision, so there is no link for me to reference. In terms of the greater universe of latex packages i can reference the mathjax doc: https://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/input/tex/macros/index.html |
Yeah, that is exactly what I've expected.
Just to clarify, I was originally referencing the 3 LaTeX packages added by you, i.e.
Great, this actually does help to make a better picture of the MathJax <-> LaTeX (TeX) relations. 👍 On that page, they say that MathJax's That being said, the 3 packages seem to be optimal, so I think I can safely accept your changes, thank you. |
This adds some ubiquitously used packages to the latex document header if there is a math environment parsed. mathjax automatically uses these if it detects features from them present in the math environment. So adding these keeps behavior consistent with mathjax, and general community expectations for people who write math in latex.
Adding them selectively(the way mathjax functions) doesn't seem to have enough benefit to justify the added lines of code in this case. I think mathjax must do it to keep memory footprint lower as a browser app.