Ask HN: How far are we from in-browser typesetting
Given advances in computing power and browser abilities, how far are we from in-browser
typesetting? Suppose we ignore issues such as reflow and legacy browser support. I am asking whether true typesetting, such as is provided by the LaTeX engine, is now possible with up-to-date technology.
4 comments
Formatting for print is one place that's still a bit tricky. Not much control over how browsers will print things, though some people I know have had success with PrinceXML as a print converter. Doing lots of "normal" print things like referencing page numbers is a bit unnatural as well, e.g. replicating the LaTeX \label \ref pair that lets you write things like "(see page 256)" without hard-coding it.
Formatting for print? I assume you aren't talking about /actual/ printing on paper... the whole point of my question is that we need a new typesetting system for active and web-enabled electronic documents which provides as much control over the reader experience as PDF does, but is not tied to the print format and has new features which are now possible.
Ah ok, I took you to be asking what's needed for HTML5 technologies to replace LaTeX/ConTeXt and similar as general tools for typesetting, which would include the ability to target both paper and screen output.
If it's for electronic documents purely, then I think we're pretty close, at least in terms of what the technology supports. Making it easy to do various kinds of typesetting tasks are perhaps another story; there is a lot of stuff that is technically possible with the tech modern browsers support but not easy to do, certainly not with a workflow as automated as LaTeX's.
If it's for electronic documents purely, then I think we're pretty close, at least in terms of what the technology supports. Making it easy to do various kinds of typesetting tasks are perhaps another story; there is a lot of stuff that is technically possible with the tech modern browsers support but not easy to do, certainly not with a workflow as automated as LaTeX's.
I think you are absolutely right, and this brings us to a daunting challenge -- how to plan and implement the document of the future...
[deleted]
what is missing now? what difference is there between "true typsetting" and current web layout engines? they seem pretty much identical to me.
maths used to be a weak point, but take this page from my blog - http://www.acooke.org/cute/Calibratin0.html - and scroll down to the maths. then look at the source. the source is basically tex. it's rendered in the browser using mathjax - http://www.mathjax.org/
that's all possible now.
maths used to be a weak point, but take this page from my blog - http://www.acooke.org/cute/Calibratin0.html - and scroll down to the maths. then look at the source. the source is basically tex. it's rendered in the browser using mathjax - http://www.mathjax.org/
that's all possible now.
Web layout is nowhere near the kind of typesetting required for professional quality documents and books.
I am aware of mathjax, which is useful for embedding snippets, but this is still far from what I am talking about, which is a complete publishing system such as latex, as is used by publishers for all kinds of documents, but for electronic active documents with features that go beyond those of books and PDF.
I am aware of mathjax, which is useful for embedding snippets, but this is still far from what I am talking about, which is a complete publishing system such as latex, as is used by publishers for all kinds of documents, but for electronic active documents with features that go beyond those of books and PDF.
instead of repeating your assertion perhaps you could explain how it is "nowhere near"?
it's a different toolchain, with different end-users in mind. but you have an underlying engine that arranges text with arbitrary modifications to font styles in arbitrary regions.
the kind of differences i see are at the level of whether those regions are rectangular or not (which css3 is addressing, i think). that is not critical for most use.
it's a different toolchain, with different end-users in mind. but you have an underlying engine that arranges text with arbitrary modifications to font styles in arbitrary regions.
the kind of differences i see are at the level of whether those regions are rectangular or not (which css3 is addressing, i think). that is not critical for most use.
I think it is reasonably self-evident that one doesn't often find webpages with the quality of typesetting that one finds in many printed books.
The TeX environment nowadays has hundreds of specialized packages which provide micro-typography support, programmatic diagrams, advanced mathematical features, detailed cross-referencing, multilanguage support, advanced treatment of fonts including ligatures, linebreaking, justification, character protrusion, grayscale balancing... A cursory glance at the PDFTeX author's thesis work may give an idea of how far the system has evolved:
http://www.pragma-ade.com/pdftex/thesis.pdf
It is impossible for me to adequately convey the TeX ecosystem in a comment -- you may consider that my question is aimed at people already familiar with it.
Now, I understand that current web technology seems to be improving to the point where, as you say, "you have an underlying engine that arranges text with arbitrary modifications..." So, I am left with the question of whether the TeX ecosystem can somehow be ported completely to create, say, HTML5 documents or something like this, instead of the current PDF output. I am talking about something new - this will not be a PDF, and it will not be a traditional webpage with features such as re-flow or "multi-browser support"... this would be an electronic publication where the author has complete control over the viewing experience. The advantage of this would be the possibility of extending TeX even further, to allow for programmatic control of the reading experience, to include features such as folding, nonlinear document structure, embedded media and code, and many other things I can't even fathom. If the current toolchain does in fact have the capabilities for TeX to be implemented in it - then it would be very interesting to create a plan for how to accomplish this goal in the proper way.
The TeX environment nowadays has hundreds of specialized packages which provide micro-typography support, programmatic diagrams, advanced mathematical features, detailed cross-referencing, multilanguage support, advanced treatment of fonts including ligatures, linebreaking, justification, character protrusion, grayscale balancing... A cursory glance at the PDFTeX author's thesis work may give an idea of how far the system has evolved:
http://www.pragma-ade.com/pdftex/thesis.pdf
It is impossible for me to adequately convey the TeX ecosystem in a comment -- you may consider that my question is aimed at people already familiar with it.
Now, I understand that current web technology seems to be improving to the point where, as you say, "you have an underlying engine that arranges text with arbitrary modifications..." So, I am left with the question of whether the TeX ecosystem can somehow be ported completely to create, say, HTML5 documents or something like this, instead of the current PDF output. I am talking about something new - this will not be a PDF, and it will not be a traditional webpage with features such as re-flow or "multi-browser support"... this would be an electronic publication where the author has complete control over the viewing experience. The advantage of this would be the possibility of extending TeX even further, to allow for programmatic control of the reading experience, to include features such as folding, nonlinear document structure, embedded media and code, and many other things I can't even fathom. If the current toolchain does in fact have the capabilities for TeX to be implemented in it - then it would be very interesting to create a plan for how to accomplish this goal in the proper way.
i'm familiar with tex.
you seem to be asking two things.
(1) - can browsers support an ecosystem that matches what is available to tex?
(2) - can tex be used to replace web pages?
the answer to (1) is yes. browsers can be "programmed" with javascript to modify layout, just as mathjax does. for example, you could write a java package that formats text for printing by adding page numbers etc. this requires someone to write the high level logic, but the underlying layout engine already exists. you would also need a package system - something like what is being developed (requirejs etc).
the quality of existing results is largely a function of market, maturity, and expectations. you're comparing books (largely paid with existing toolchains) against web pages (largely free, all this is pretty new). the layout engine itself is, as i have already said, pretty much equivalent.
(2) is a confused mess that you don't seem to have thought out properly. and given the tone of your other replies i sure ain't going to help you.
you seem to be asking two things.
(1) - can browsers support an ecosystem that matches what is available to tex?
(2) - can tex be used to replace web pages?
the answer to (1) is yes. browsers can be "programmed" with javascript to modify layout, just as mathjax does. for example, you could write a java package that formats text for printing by adding page numbers etc. this requires someone to write the high level logic, but the underlying layout engine already exists. you would also need a package system - something like what is being developed (requirejs etc).
the quality of existing results is largely a function of market, maturity, and expectations. you're comparing books (largely paid with existing toolchains) against web pages (largely free, all this is pretty new). the layout engine itself is, as i have already said, pretty much equivalent.
(2) is a confused mess that you don't seem to have thought out properly. and given the tone of your other replies i sure ain't going to help you.
In the TeX output, say the DVI file, we can (I presume, though I don't know any details) find all the information about detailed placement and size of all the characters and diagrams. This is provided in a certain format, according to certain conceptual framework.
On the other hand, the web technologies, including javascript, can theoretically be programmed to respond to such instructions and recreate the same kind of control we get with PDFs, and even go beyond it.
What I wonder is: if we want this kind of inter-operability, what is the crux of the matter? Where precisely does the mapping have to be made?
Thanks for your 2 cents, I "ain't" asking for your "help".
On the other hand, the web technologies, including javascript, can theoretically be programmed to respond to such instructions and recreate the same kind of control we get with PDFs, and even go beyond it.
What I wonder is: if we want this kind of inter-operability, what is the crux of the matter? Where precisely does the mapping have to be made?
Thanks for your 2 cents, I "ain't" asking for your "help".
Three things come immediately to mind: non-paginated layouts, immutable output, and tool support.
First, while most of the basic TeX algorithms for things like line-breaking and hyphenation could be implemented in terms of browser primitives, the overall TeX system is irrevocably page-oriented. While the maximum page length could theoretically be increased to "essentially infinite" through judicious widening of TeX's integer data types, this would break lots of TeX code and documents, for both performance and layout reasons.
Second, one of Knuth's main design goals for TeX was "perfect" backwards and cross-platform compatibility for documents, to the extent that he implemented everything in terms of integer math to avoid minor output variations due to slightly different floating-point implementations on various systems. If this is a design goal for a "drop-in" replacement system, it's not clear that the browser is a good target platform, because you generally want browser vendors to take advantage of things like hardware accelerated rendering that tend to be incompatible with "pixel-perfect" output for all permissible resolutions.
In both of the above cases, it's clear that lots of preparatory work needs to be done simply to understand what a high-quality platform for technical publishing in "native Web form" should even look like — but chances are good that it'll look quite a bit different than TeX, if only because the browser is quite a bit different than the printed page.
Finally, I use Emacs to write TeX documents and I rarely use any particularly sophisticated editor support beyond simple syntax awareness and highlighting — and I'm hardly alone. The fact that TeX is, like Emacs, largely implemented "in terms of itself" means that it's often more natural to implement automation in the document (where I include various third party packages in my definition of the "document", my point being simply that the document itself drives the automation at "runtime") rather than relying on powerful external editing and preprocessing tools. For authors like me who aren't professional Web designers and/or JavaScript programmers, the prospect of using anything related to HTML and DOM as bases for input and macros sounds like a nightmare. People commonly use TeX equation notation in plain text contexts, because, unlike SGML derivatives like HTML and MathML, TeX was designed to be written and (at least to some extent) read by humans. Again, there are lots of reasonable alternatives ranging from powerful editing tools that could potentially at this point be implemented in the same language as the document itself, which would have certain advantages, to extended versions of preprocessed input formats like Markdown. But again, it'd take lots of work to establish "one and only one" of these options as a standard.
First, while most of the basic TeX algorithms for things like line-breaking and hyphenation could be implemented in terms of browser primitives, the overall TeX system is irrevocably page-oriented. While the maximum page length could theoretically be increased to "essentially infinite" through judicious widening of TeX's integer data types, this would break lots of TeX code and documents, for both performance and layout reasons.
Second, one of Knuth's main design goals for TeX was "perfect" backwards and cross-platform compatibility for documents, to the extent that he implemented everything in terms of integer math to avoid minor output variations due to slightly different floating-point implementations on various systems. If this is a design goal for a "drop-in" replacement system, it's not clear that the browser is a good target platform, because you generally want browser vendors to take advantage of things like hardware accelerated rendering that tend to be incompatible with "pixel-perfect" output for all permissible resolutions.
In both of the above cases, it's clear that lots of preparatory work needs to be done simply to understand what a high-quality platform for technical publishing in "native Web form" should even look like — but chances are good that it'll look quite a bit different than TeX, if only because the browser is quite a bit different than the printed page.
Finally, I use Emacs to write TeX documents and I rarely use any particularly sophisticated editor support beyond simple syntax awareness and highlighting — and I'm hardly alone. The fact that TeX is, like Emacs, largely implemented "in terms of itself" means that it's often more natural to implement automation in the document (where I include various third party packages in my definition of the "document", my point being simply that the document itself drives the automation at "runtime") rather than relying on powerful external editing and preprocessing tools. For authors like me who aren't professional Web designers and/or JavaScript programmers, the prospect of using anything related to HTML and DOM as bases for input and macros sounds like a nightmare. People commonly use TeX equation notation in plain text contexts, because, unlike SGML derivatives like HTML and MathML, TeX was designed to be written and (at least to some extent) read by humans. Again, there are lots of reasonable alternatives ranging from powerful editing tools that could potentially at this point be implemented in the same language as the document itself, which would have certain advantages, to extended versions of preprocessed input formats like Markdown. But again, it'd take lots of work to establish "one and only one" of these options as a standard.
[deleted]
This has been possible for a while, its even easier with WebGL. I would not be surprised if it made for a killer 'retina' display demo.
I would be interested to know whether a version of the TeX typesetting program could be implemented in WebGL or some appropriate tool.
I have been seeing a lot more HTML5 demos with unusual placement of fonts and text. So it seems a no-brainer to port TeX to the browser (for many years this was considered impossible for some reason)
I have been seeing a lot more HTML5 demos with unusual placement of fonts and text. So it seems a no-brainer to port TeX to the browser (for many years this was considered impossible for some reason)
Memory available to the browser was limited, sub-pixel rendering was impractical. There is a commercial product 'MathType' that uses TeX to render beautiful mathematics on web pages but I don't know if they have a WebGL version or not.
If you read Don Knuth's book on TeX you can probably figure out how to make it run.
If you read Don Knuth's book on TeX you can probably figure out how to make it run.
I will at least look at Knuth's book, though I doubt I will be able to make it work!