Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I added a table to homotopy groups of spheres (homotopytypetheory) a while ago. Looking back it is looking very bleak. Is there a way I can add some colour to break it up a little?
MathML has support for colour: I have just added an example to the Sandbox, one has to add an mstyle
tag with the mathcolor
attribute set around the rest of the MathML code.
As far as I know, though, itex2MML does not have syntax to support this. So the only way (as far as I know) will be if you replace the LaTeX in the table with actual MathML code (which you can get from looking at the HTML source), and then add the mstyle
tag.
We can add yet another item to the Technical TODO list (nlabmeta) to add proper support for this to the nLab :-).
Color is easy in maths environment: backslash-color just as in LaTeX. (Example also in Sandbox now) this can be included in table entries.
Ah, great! This adds the mstyle
tag with the mathcolor
attribute to the MathML, more or less in the manner I did by hand. Do we have this syntax in the HowTo? Would be good to add if not.
Not in HowTo, I think. Myself, I discovered this by having the whim to try it one day. I can add it later, if nobody else does.
What about the background of the table? Can that be done?
Definitely in HTML, but I don’t know if there is support for it in Markdown Extra, which is the syntax typically used for tables on the nLab. Maybe Urs or somebody else knows.
I’m not sure myself that the table syntax in Markdown is really much more readable or quicker to write than the HTML syntax, though, maybe even arguably less readable. So you could consider switching to a HTML table syntax. I can help with that if needed.
It seems that you can give a coloured background to text, e.g., ${\bgcolor{red} a b} c {\bgcolor{#0F0}d e}$. But probably not for whole boxes.
Yes. As with so many other things in Instiki, the table syntax seems to have been designed with very small scale applications in mind. For jotting down a 2x2 table the Instiki syntax is probably quicker than HTML, but when you have a non-trivial table, the Instiki syntax becomes unsuitable, for instance by its demand to have the code for each row be strictly in one single line of source, or its insistence that you add redundant code for the first hrule, and, moreover, that you precisely count your columns for that in order that the whole thing parses at all.
Test
$n\backslash k$ | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | [$\pi_0(S^0)$](#pinsn) | [$\pi_0(S^1)$](#piksn) | [$\pi_0(S^2)$](#piksn) | [$\pi_0(S^3)$](#piksn) | [$\pi_0(S^4)$](#piksn) |
1 | $\pi_1(S^0)$ | [$\pi_1(S^1)$](#pinsn) | [$\pi_1(S^2)$](#piksn) | [$\pi_1(S^3)$](#piksn) | [$\pi_1(S^4)$](#piksn) |
2 | $\pi_2(S^0)$ | $\pi_2(S^1)$ | [$\pi_2(S^2)$](#pinsn) | [$\pi_2(S^3)$](#piksn) | [$\pi_2(S^4)$](#piksn) |
3 | $\pi_3(S^0)$ | $\pi_3(S^1)$ | [$\pi_3(S^2)$](#pi3s2) | [$\pi_3(S^3)$](#pinsn) | [$\pi_3(S^4)$](#piksn) |
4 | $\pi_4(S^0)$ | $\pi_4(S^1)$ | [$\pi_4(S^2)$](#hopff) | [$\pi_4(S^3)$](#pi4s3) | [$\pi_4(S^4)$](#pinsn) |
HTML tables are a bit tedious but I think its our only option.
So the problem with HTML tables is that the LaTeX is not rendering. I would be grateful if someone could help colour this. The table should look like the one on wikipedia, however obviously mine is transposed. The one I have put on the sandbox is complete nonsense.
I’ll take a look later. If necessary I can tweak things to make the LaTeX render.
1 to 13 of 13