[Blindmath] Accessible LaTeX

[Roopakshi Pathania]

Hi Prof. Stacey and all,

Though my reply may seem a little late, it is relevant to the discussion.

Prof. Stacey, as long as your papers are on arXiv, you don’t need to do anything else. The arXMLiv project (http://kwarc.info/projects/arXMLiv/) converts the LaTeX source hosted on arXiv.org into XHTML+MathML. They use LaTeXML for the conversion. They also provide LaTeXML bindings for the classes and packages available at arXiv.

Now, provided that your papers are converted successfully, you can find them and others here.

http://arxmliv.kwarc.info/retval_detail.php?retval=no_problems

In case they are not converted successfully, they would be in any of these other categories. 

http://arxmliv.kwarc.info/

For some reason, I can’t access the papers- I’m getting a 403 Forbidden error.

Anyway, for those interested, checkout this presentation: 

http://river-valley.tv/converting-arxiv-into-xhtml-mathml/

and this paper:

http://kwarc.info/kohlhase/submit/dml09.pdf.

Regards

"and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
~ the Bible (John 8:32)


--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Andrew Stacey <andrew.stacey at math.ntnu.no> wrote:

> From: Andrew Stacey <andrew.stacey at math.ntnu.no>
> Subject: Re: [Blindmath] Accessible LaTeX
> To: "Blind Math list for those interested in mathematics" <blindmath at nfbnet.org>
> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 3:15 AM
> Thanks for all the interesting
> replies!
> 
> Some of the comments, and the interview that was linked to
> by someone, made me
> wonder why I'm so obsessive about (La)TeX and why I don't
> want to give it up.
> I was particularly taken by that sentence in the interview
> about wanting to
> enter a source that validates, and how he thinks that
> backslashes and braces
> are just so wrong.  To me, that says that the person
> speaking is someone who
> supports TeX-users rather than someone who writes copious
> documents in it.
> 
> For me, TeX is just so right!  And on so many
> different levels.  I've not
> tried to think this through before so I may misstate my
> thoughts, but here's
> a first go at why I like it so much.
> 
> Firstly, it is discrete.  When writing a document in
> (la)tex, then I hardly
> notice that I'm writing anything other than the contents of
> the document
> itself.  I don't need to worry about formatting, what
> it looks like, or
> anything like that.  When I do need something more
> complicated, say
> mathematics, then TeX discretely offers a nice simple way
> to do it.
> 
> Secondly, (as someone said in one of the replies) it is a
> programming
> language.  When I need the power of TeX then it's
> there.  I can define macros
> to save my poor fingers: typing \R instead of \mathbb{R} is
> fantastic!  And
> I can make it easy to change global settings, say by
> changing all composition
> of functions from right-to-left to left-to-right, and just
> know that
> everything's going to be alright.  I can do really
> complicated stuff when
> I need to.
> 
> Thirdly, as a mathematician then TeX is the epitome of
> design.  The process
> "read, expand, read, expand" is exactly how we parse
> mathematics!  Keep
> expanding the definitions in a proof until you reach
> something that you
> understand.  So it's just beautiful that something so
> close to what I do
> professionally is also at the heart of how I present the
> results.
> 
> So I'm not going to give up TeX without a huge fight. 
> No one's going to get
> me to have input that can be "validated".  Yuk! 
> What a horrible phrase!
> I want my mathematics to be validated, sure, but I'd like
> the freedom to
> really mess up the paper in the meantime.
> 
> However, lest the mathml brigade lose heart, just because
> I'm going to go on
> writing TeX for as long as I've a finger left to hit the
> keyboard with,
> doesn't mean that I expect anyone other than me and TeX to
> read that.  Those
> who say that they like LaTeX on the web have probably never
> tried reading the
> source of one of my papers!  What I expect they mean
> is some sort of
> simplified LaTeX with no funny macros and the like.
> 
> As far as reading what I write is concerned, then I'm
> convinced by the MathML
> argument.  So for me, an ideal situation would be to
> have a decent, robust,
> (La)TeX to MathML converter.  To my mind, MathML is an
> output language, like
> PDF, PS, or DVI.  So I'm quite happy to compile my
> LaTeX documents into MathML
> to make them more accessible.  If only there were a
> converter that could cope
> with my macros ...
> 
> Andrew
> 
> PS As an indication of my level of TeX addiction, I even
> wrote the invitations
> to my daughter's birthday party using TeX.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blindmath mailing list
> Blindmath at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindmath_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your
> account info for Blindmath:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindmath_nfbnet.org/r_akshi_tgk%40yahoo.com
>