How about a plugin adding a
-[[preprocessor_directive|preprocessordirective]] to render some given LaTeX
+[[preprocessor_directive|ikiwiki/preprocessordirective]] to render some given LaTeX
and include it in the page? This could either render the LaTeX as a PNG via
-[[debpkg dvipng]] and include the resulting image in the page, or perhaps
+[[!debpkg dvipng]] and include the resulting image in the page, or perhaps
render via [HeVeA](http://pauillac.inria.fr/~maranget/hevea/index.html),
[TeX2page](http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~dorai/tex2page/tex2page-doc.html), or
similar. Useful for mathematics, as well as for stuff like the LaTeX version
> fixed a bug (the first time it was run, it tried to write the png file
> before the teximages/ directory existed) and checked the result in.
>
-> Can you please flesh out [[plugins/tex]] with
+> Can you please flesh out [[plugins/teximg]] with
> whatever documentation people who know tex will expect to see?
+
Okay, I'll fill this up today I think with information about the plugin
->
+Done. Is that docu fine with you?
+
+>> Perhaps add some documentation about the kind of tex code that can be
+>> used, or a link to some documentation so people who don't know latex
+>> well can figure this out?
+
> Also, please review my changes. In particular, I changed the @badthings
> array to use qr//, which is much clearer, but it needs to be tested that
> I didn't break the checking code when I did it. It would be nice to write
> a test case that tries to feed it bad code and makes sure it rejects it.
+
+I'll test this now on my server. I'll report here later.
+Okay, checked. it works fine. My blacklist tests were successfull.
+
>
> Does it really make sense to have an alt tag for the image
> that contains the tex code? Will that make any sense when browsing
> without images?
+
Mh.. For people who know latex very well this would be enough to imagine how the image would look like.
This are of course the minority of people (but I guess also the minority of people are using non-gui browsers).
->
+
> I'm thinking about renameing the preprocessor directive to teximg.
-> \[[teximg code="" alt="foo"]] makes sense.. Would it make sense to rename
+> \[[!teximg code="" alt="foo"]] makes sense.. Would it make sense to rename
> the whole plugin, or do you think that other tex stuff should go in this
> same plugin?
-I'll think over this until I'm at work ;)
+I'll think over this until I'm at work ;) Only for rendering images... not for generating .tex files .../wiki/
+the name is all the same i think. If you like teximg better than switch :)
+
->
> Note: I removed the style= attribute, since as I've told you, the
> htmlsanitizer strips those since they can be used to insert javascript. I
> put in a class=teximage instead; the style sheet could be modified to
> style that, if you want to send a patch for that.
+
Ah yes.. sorry forgot to update the plugin in my public_html folder %-). This was my last change in this plugin :) Sorry.
>
> --[[Joey]]
-[[tag soc]]
-[[tag wishlist]]
+[[!tag soc]]
+[[!tag wishlist]]