Details
-
Type:
Sub-task
-
Status:
Closed
-
Priority:
Major
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Affects Version/s: 1.7
-
Fix Version/s: 2.0
-
Component/s: HTML Editor
-
Labels:None
-
Affected Branches:MOODLE_17_STABLE
-
Fixed Branches:MOODLE_20_STABLE
Description
To enter TeX manually is frustrating for most people, a wyswig equation editor will be of great help not only to students but also teachers who are trying to communicate with each other, especially those who are teaching and learning Math.
Attachments
Issue Links
| This issue will be resolved by: | ||||
| MDL-16279 | Resolve lack of wysiwygequation editor by incorporating dragmath in core |
|
|
|
Activity
[Whoops, just clicked the wrong button and lost everything I had inserted here so will have to start anew...]
I wanted to find a place to put down some ideas, notes, considerations for the future of equations editors and related technology and thought I might as well do it here - so while this may seem to ramble a bit, I am intending to come to a point ;=}
First off, tip o the hat to John for all the work he has done to further the use of mathematical notation in moodle. As Alex, Chris and others have noted vis-a-vis dragmath and Peter, James and others have noted vis-a-vis asciimathml, use of mathematical notation in today's pedagogy is critical.
Dragmath is a key application for the reasons John noted. However, Mauno's work with XInha has resurrected what became known as the Xinha Equation plugin (which I have taken to call EqEd as a nickname for Equation Editor) which was based on Peter Jipsen's asciimathml. While EqEd looks at things a bit differently than dragmath, they are complementary applications now as asciimathml will parse tex and dragmath will insert asciimathml text with asciimathml tokens (and I am hoping that soon dragmath and asciimathml will both address OpenOffice Math text).
ASCIIMathML, however, deserves some additional consideration for a number of reasons. It is already available in js and php form, it can be used as filter, as part of a theme or by external manual reference (where the moodle module in question allows inserting of script tags) and can be used to address all three elements of math notation: construction, text expression and display. And, it offers integration with svg via a co-located file (which means users can not only write equations that are created at run time, they can do the same with graphs and actually manipulate the graphs), use as a calculator, use as a gui editor, etc!!
Additionally, asciimathml uses MathML which is the w3c adopted means for displaying math. Jonathan Fine has posted about the MathTrans work (which I have commented reminds me in some respects of EqEd) but MathTrans ran into issues with MathML conversion. jsMath is intended to bypass MathML so as to provide IE users with the option of not having to install MathPlayer. The bottom line here is that asciimathml is the leading, if not only, open tool for run time parsing and display of equations in MathML.
OK.. off the soapbox.... The point here is that there has been discussion about making some of these tools available in core and there is a good deal of work involved in making them usable as patches or plugins. Mauno's work has shown how asciimathml and dragmath can be integrated in moodle to complement a number of editors. These are critical open tools that need a fast track if you will to integration. There have also been quite a few issues raised about use of these tools in the forums and in track. For example, the issue with tex's use of square bracket in the wiki or the thumbs up and down issues with 
and 
in equations. Mauno has been working with me and others to identify and address the idiosyncracies involved in streamlining usage of these tools across three different editors and through his industry I have to say I am delighted with the progress.
But, I am wondering if someone (I guess I am volunteering if I have to to quote from Red Green) needs to collect all issues, questions, suggestion vis-a-vis my "big three" mathematics foci in one tracker item . To some extent I think this might be make work in that Mauno has already addressed and resolved so many items, and in part, from my perhaps parochial perspective I would like to see Mauno's work become the starting point via CVS for further editor development and integration (I already had talked to Anthony about creating a CVS for Mauno's work) and then perhaps even integrated into a 1.9.x Test branch because the changes can be so well localized so that the work can be tested. As Mauno has already shown, there is a huge amount of testing to be done and the best way to get testing done is to put the testbed in the hands of users.
So, I thought I would post these meanderings here and ask specifically (where are bullets when you need them):
Should I create a separate tracker item for math notation dev relating to new editors so that we can collect all issues in one place while not overwhleming the general editor tracker item?
If so, should that tracker item include all three foci and if not, which and why?
Should it include interface options/issues (e.g. filter vs versus style/theme usage, etc)
Should it raise questions about plugin APIs
Should it be linked to the editor tracker or other item and if so how?
Add what ever else........
and in equations. Mauno has been working with me and others to identify and address the idiosyncracies involved in streamlining usage of these tools across three different editors and through his industry I have to say I am delighted with the progress.
But, I am wondering if someone (I guess I am volunteering if I have to to quote from Red Green) needs to collect all issues, questions, suggestion vis-a-vis my "big three" mathematics foci in one tracker item . To some extent I think this might be make work in that Mauno has already addressed and resolved so many items, and in part, from my perhaps parochial perspective I would like to see Mauno's work become the starting point via CVS for further editor development and integration (I already had talked to Anthony about creating a CVS for Mauno's work) and then perhaps even integrated into a 1.9.x Test branch because the changes can be so well localized so that the work can be tested. As Mauno has already shown, there is a huge amount of testing to be done and the best way to get testing done is to put the testbed in the hands of users.
So, I thought I would post these meanderings here and ask specifically (where are bullets when you need them):
Should I create a separate tracker item for math notation dev relating to new editors so that we can collect all issues in one place while not overwhleming the general editor tracker item?
If so, should that tracker item include all three foci and if not, which and why?
Should it include interface options/issues (e.g. filter vs versus style/theme usage, etc)
Should it raise questions about plugin APIs
Should it be linked to the editor tracker or other item and if so how?
Add what ever else........ 
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=78683