commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From S├ębastien Brisard <>
Subject Re: [all] xdoc vs. apt
Date Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:34:40 GMT
Hi Luc,

>>> Having something compatible with Mathjax would be a tremendous step
>>> forward
>>> for [math]. I would really love to see this happen!
>> We can in fact make it happen now! In the site.xml file, we just need
>> to add (in the <body></body> section)
>> <head>
>> <script src=''
> Yes, I know about that, but this means our page depend on some external
> service which is frowned upon at Apache. If we want to jump to the MathJax
> bandwagon I think we should have a copy of MathJax installed on our servers.
> We could do it ourselves in a dedicated area of our components, but it may be
> better to ask infra about it  before (for the record, MathJax is distributed under the
> terms of the Apache License V2).

OK, you already knew about that. I'm sorry.

> On the other hand, if we set up the site.xml file to point to a local installation,
> then users who regenerate the site and do not install MathJax by themselves
> would get weird results.
I have never tried to install MathJax locally, I understand it's quite
a ride. We should spare this to our users...

> So at least we have to think a little about it.
Another option would be this: since maven-site works with strict xhtml
(unlike javadoc), we can embed MathML code in our pages. I'm not sure
how we would do it in xdoc or apt, but we can certainly write our
user's guide in xhtml (which would not make much of a difference as
compared to xdoc). I know MathML is (very) verbose, but our site would
then be fully self-sufficient. One approach I use quite consistently
is to write MathML objects in *.mml files, which are included in the
xhtml file.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message