Différences
Ci-dessous, les différences entre deux révisions de la page.
| — | 5_fichiers:xml:convertir_du_latex_en_html2 [2022/12/11 21:14] (Version actuelle) – Création de la page. jejust | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ligne 1: | Ligne 1: | ||
| + | ====== Conversion from (La)TeX to HTML ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Translating LaTeX documents (partially or fully) to HTML is a difficult problem, | ||
| + | primarily because the two document formats address very different needs: | ||
| + | TeX is intended to produce statically laid out documents with fixed dimensions, | ||
| + | ultimately representing ink on paper. HTML, on the other hand, assumes | ||
| + | a variety of differently sized and scaled screens and consequently prefers | ||
| + | to express layouts in more abstract terms, the typesetting of which are ultimately | ||
| + | left to the browser to interpret, ideally responsively --- i.e. we want | ||
| + | the document layout to adapt to different screen sizes, ranging from 8K desktop monitors | ||
| + | to cell phone screens. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This means that there is no one “correct” way to convert TeX to HTML --- rather | ||
| + | there are many choices to be made; most notably, which aspects of the static layout | ||
| + | with fixed dimensions described by TeX code to preserve, and which to discard | ||
| + | in favour of leaving them up to the rendering engine, thus explaining | ||
| + | the plurality of existing converters. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Naturally, many LaTeX macros are somewhat aligned with tags in HTML; | ||
| + | for example, sectioning macros ('' | ||
| + | ''< | ||
| + | environments and the \item macro correspond to ''< | ||
| + | respectively; | ||
| + | of mapping common LaTeX macros directly to their closest HTML relatives, | ||
| + | with no or minimal usage of (simple) CSS, effectively focusing on preserving | ||
| + | the //document semantics// of the used constructs (e.g. “paragraph”, | ||
| + | “section heading”, “unordered list”). In many situations, this is the natural approach | ||
| + | to pursue, especially if we can reasonably assume that the document sources | ||
| + | to be converted are sufficiently “uniform”, | ||
| + | CSS style sheet to style them, and this is largely the way existing converters work. | ||
| + | To name just a few: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, the approach described above has notable drawbacks: | ||
| + | Firstly, it requires special treatment of LaTeX macros that plain TeX | ||
| + | would expand into primitives, and the number of LaTeX macros is | ||
| + | virtually unlimited --- CTAN has (currently) a collection of 6399(nbsp)packages, | ||
| + | tendency growing, which get updated regularly, and authors can add their own macros | ||
| + | at any point. Supporting only the former is a never-ending task, | ||
| + | and providing direct HTML translations for the latter is impossible. | ||
| + | This is made worse by the very real and ubiquitous practice among LaTeX users | ||
| + | of copy-pasting and reusing various macro definitions and preambles assembled | ||
| + | from StackOverflow, | ||
| + | generations, | ||
| + | with better solutions (possibly supported by HTML converters) exist. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ----- | ||
| + | // | ||
| + | * [[doi> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
| + | metatag-og: | ||
| + | metatag-og: | ||
| + | }} | ||

