Talk:Superellipse: Difference between revisions
m
→Formulae now invisible on standard OS X browsers
(→Formulae now invisible on standard OS X browsers: added comments.) |
|||
Line 61:
:::::::::::::: Syntactically incorrect HTML is certainly a bug from a browsers point of view, but we may find that the authors of the https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math throw up their hands and ask us why on earth we thought that they supported the insertion of redundant white space literals around our Latex expressions :-) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 05:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: That should be an easy question to answer. Consider, for example: https://www.sharelatex.com/learn/Spacing_in_math_mode --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 07:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: In all the bugs that I've reported (mostly to IBM and compiler developers) over my many years, I have never had authors (or code supporters) ask me why a program (or person) was using a legal construct (as if that's an excuse why whitespace was being used somewhere for readability). You have found that the browser is getting syntactically incorrect HTML code from a Wiki pre-processor, and the reason why that is being constructed incorrectly for some pre-processor seems to be now known (a missing semicolon). Also keep in mind that not all browsers (or pre-processors?) are failing. Apparently, not all Rosetta Code people are using the same Rosetta Code (Wiki) pre-processor, is that correct? If I reported a problem with (say) a compiler [or whatever] which caused it to fail with inserted extra (or redundant) whitespace (where it isn't specifically barred), the failing/incorrect code gets fixed. Why should they care if whitespace is redundant or not? Redundancy for whitespace is almost in the definition of whitespace. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
| |||