Re: latex fragments, dvipng and mathjax

[Aankhen <aankhen@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 07:43, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:
> Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:
>> On 03/08/2011 02:16 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> > That forces HTML-CSS output and from what I can see on the mathjax site,
>> > that should improve things - but it doesn't for me, so I'm still not out
>> > of the woods. Maybe MathJax doesn't know where to get the TeX fonts?
>>
>> Do the examples on mathjax.org look nice to you? And which browser
>> do you happen to be using for viewing?
>
> Yes - the Cauchy integral formula (as well as the Gauss divergence
> theorem further down) on
>
>    http://www.mathjax.org/demos/mathml-samples/
>
> looks fine when HTML-CSS rendering is chosen. When MathML
> rendering is chosen, the integral sign is too small. That's
> what motivated the mathml:nil effort above, but it didn't pan
> out. But even in MathML rendering, the integral sign, even though
> small, looks better than the one I posted.
>
> I'm using firefox 3.6.14 on Ubuntu 10.10.

FWIW, same here.  Firefox 3.6.15 on Windows 7.  Given that both pages
specify the MathJax_Math font yet only mathjax.org actually looks like
it uses it, you’re probably right about MathJax having trouble finding
the fonts on yours.

I tried a couple other browsers.  IE8 aborts the script after an error
on “Line 1, char 6” (I think that’s because of the nest of CDATA, HTML
comments and JS comments), while Chrome seems to be using the right
font.  So I guess this is a Firefox thing.  The FAQ mentions Firefox’s
same-origin policy in the context of image fonts being used instead of
web fonts.[1] Seems unlikely to be the culprit in this case though.
*shrugs*

Hope this helps narrow it down a little.

Aankhen

[1]: http://www.mathjax.org/resources/faqs/#image-fonts