1. 9

  2. 7

    What is this trying to solve? We already have many abstract notations for mathematics, from eqn(7) to LaTeX to MathML and so on and so on. Not even to mention the raft of per-language mathematics languages.

    (Isn’t asciimath the result of MultiMarkdown 2 trying to shoehorn “markdown philosophy” into mathematics before bailing back into LaTeX in subsequent generations?)

    1. 2

      From the looks of it, this is trying to solve the problem of the cumbersome and sometimes silly syntax LaTeX uses. If you know LaTeX and want to use it, more power to you, but there are books explaining its use, whereas this is specified in just a single webpage. It seems like a much lower bar to jump.

      1. 2

        I think part of @kristapsdz’s point is that there are already several options here. S/He explicitly gave three.

        1. 3

          I get the critique, I just don’t think there’s a problem with experimenting on stuff like this. Personally, this seems way easier to read when rendered just as ASCII (without MathJax) which is one of the things I don’t like about sites that use LaTeX in particular.

        2. 1

          It’s been a while since I used LaTeX but it’s not that hard to use for simpler formulas. I’d rather have one implementation than have to learn yet another syntax.

          Of course the cleanest way to handle this is to just write everything in LaTeX and output to HTML…

        3. 1

          Now we need plain text output for eqn. This would be the real ASCII/UTF-8 math for me.

        4. 2

          works in all browsers

          I can’t see anything in links. :-P

          I still can see the text as it is typed in the input, but I do not think the priority was displaying plain text math, just writing.

          1. 1

            This looks great! It’s like a markdown syntax for math.