Trying to understand how math font selection works

[Lupp]

@teko_ippt

The auto-scaling of inline-formula in Latex (as far as i remember) and Word works pretty well, for example when you write a fraction in inline-formula. I guess this is not possible when LO math still returns an image.
But we should go to this direction.

This again makes me doubt if we are talking of the same thing using the words “scaling” or “inline-formula” or “image” in the given context.
As I remember it (currently no ‘Word’ available here) Word's included version of MathType always showed an image by default , and this image was exported to different applications (Writer, web browsers) when opening a Word document with equations. (At least I had to set anew hundreds of formulas when I abandoned Word and moved to StarOffice in about 1999.)
Concerning the term inline-formula: To my understanding this must be plaint text coming with any kind of markup telling the editor (probably/wishable) and an extension/macros (surely) the fact “This is intended to finally be shown graphically as a formula if it goes to a printed version”. The examples contained in the document “nextExampleMathInlineFormulas.odt” already attached to a previous comment of mine were of this kind using the shorthand markup-parentheses $. (left) and .$ (right). That attachment also contains an actually working very short (30-liner) macro from my toolbox for the conversion from “inline” to “rendered”. (A revese macro would be very simple, but ´was not provided there.)
Anyway: A typesetting application using inline markup for mathematical formulas needs to be “free” in its ways to position (and anchor and align and…) the resulting graphical elements when creating a printable view of the document or must be told explicitly in what way the author wants to get it done in the given case. An example demonstrating this problem and a very raw first approach to its solution is the “large” formula contained in a TextFrame.

@teko_ippt

If you {@ajlittoz} think, I should post a request/bug in the bugZilla. (if one of those ideas is good enough). Please let me know.

I don’t think developers are blind concerning the Math component (which is “independent” anyway as far as components of a monolithic application can be), and one of the well known ones (@mikekaganski) already posted a comment to this thread. Two reasons may be relevant for the lack of development:

• Missing human resources.
• Doubts in the probably outdated concept of Math (specifically concening the ‘OpenSymbol’ approach.
  An actual specification, however, should be based on very profound knowlege.

[teko_ippt]

@Lupp

This again makes me doubt if we are talking of the same thing using the words “scaling” or “inline-formula” or “image” in the given context.
As I remember it (currently no ‘Word’ available here) Word's included version of MathType always showed an image by default , and this image was exported to different applications (Writer, web browsers) when opening a Word document with equations. (At least I had to set anew hundreds of formulas when I abandoned Word and moved to StarOffice in about 1999.)

Hi Lupp, thank you. I am sure we are talking the same thing: In-line formula.
The current version of word doesn’t use math type anymore, and it does return text instead of an image.
If you don’t have word, try it in google-docs, it is similar but less developed.
There you can type with using latex command, press space/enter you get the equation printed as text.
But there is no way to edit the latex command, only edit manually (a caveat).

I’ll respond to other comment later…

[Lupp]

@teko_ippt

Hi Lupp, thank you. I am sure we are talking the same thing: In-line formula.
The current version of word doesn’t use math type anymore, …

I got noice of that, but don’t understand

@teko_ippt

… and it does return text instead of an image.

Even Word will need to render a formula to get it accepted as a formula by the reader.
Can you give ma an example (if anavoidabel as an imagew of a view on “living Word”).

@teko_ippt

… try it in google-docs …

Sorry. I defintely decided to not use “services” of that kind.
Yes. I know that this can be criticized, and that it means forgoing knowledge of possibly relevant facts.

[teko_ippt]

@Lupp

Even Word will need to render a formula to get it accepted as a formula by the reader.
Can you give ma an example (if anavoidabel as an imagew of a view on “living Word”).

Hi @Lupp .
I think this youtube tutorial shows better than if I make my own screen recording.

[Lupp]

Sorry. I don’t watch clips of the kind. More than one reason.

And I didn’t want to learn anything about the current formula means of Word, but to learn what you meant by

@teko_ippt

…and it does return text instead of an image.

And

@Lupp

… if anavoidabel as an image of a view on “living Word”

was meant to accept a hardcopy of the situation where “return text instead of an image” gets understandable. It was not about another “screen recording” which I much dislike.

[teko_ippt]

@Lupp

Anyway: A typesetting application using inline markup for mathematical formulas needs to be “free” in its ways to position (and anchor and align and…) the resulting graphical elements when creating a printable view of the document or must be told explicitly in what way the author wants to get it done in the given case. An example demonstrating this problem and a very raw first approach to its solution is the “large” formula contained in a TextFrame.

@ajlittoz

To make this dream come true, we need a solid rigorous specification coexisting peacefully with ODF.

In general, I agree with all of your idea.
How do we proceed with “solid rigorous specification”?
The discussion is getting longer.
Is there any example?

I would like to try my best to help,
It is not about competing with other processor.

LO is good, I imagine if LO is a football team (soccer in US),
then MATH is the veteran, almost retired goalkeeper.
it’s good. But should be upgraded.

WYSIWYG is still easier for everyone, in general.
LO should be “all around” open-source software.
that in terms of text+math, everyone should be able to write that easily (easy to use) and get a good quality, without the need of learning to use macro+another programming language or installing extension, at least for ‘basic’ stuff that we discussed here.

One important reason that we may have yet mentioned:
I’m grateful for these missing/incomplete features that provided by Macro/extension/workaround, but it prohibits collaborative work.
It is ok for documents that only you and yourself edit it.
When you write an article, there will be many co-authors working on the same document.
It is not fun to say to them, please use this … install that…
I tried, it didn’t work.
Not even for the simplest thing like please install the missing font.
But this is the reason there’s an embed font option, isn’t it?
once i used the latex extension. the other person use lo-math.
its a mess. not to mentioned the other collaborator uses word.

[Lupp]

@teko_ippt

The current version of word doesn’t use math type anymore, and it does return text instead of an image.

@Lupp

… And I didn’t want to learn anything about the current formula means of Word, but to learn what you meant by

…and it does return text instead of an image.

I didn’t get this answer yet. Therefore I assume I actually don’t understand much of what’s posted in this thread. Consequently I will stop to make it grow even longer.

[teko_ippt]

It’s an open forum.
Anyone can enter or leave as they want.
I have already given the best answer I could (based on my limited knowledge) and the time I have.

Thank you.