On Math SE and Crypto SE, they have MathML support. This would be great for Security SE too, since we deal with quite a bit of crypto.
For those of you that don't know, MathML turns this:
$$m \oplus k = c$$
Into this:
1 Answer
I'm not sure it is important enough to turn on at the moment.
I like Latex-style notation, too. So, personally, I like MathML. If it were enabled, I would use it in some of my answers.
However, my impression is that the StackExchange folks are generally reluctant to turn on MathML support, unless it is needed, because of its performance impact. I don't think turning on MathML support is a high priority on this site: my sense is that very few questions or answers really need MathML. Therefore, given the performance impact, I think it is acceptable to continue with the status quo (no MathML support).
-
2DW is pretty much 100% correct. If you guys want MathJax enabled on your site, you'd have to demonstrate that a significant portion of all posts are seriously limited by the lack of MathJax support. Sites like Math obviously need MathJax, and Chemistry demonstrated its need for chemical formula LaTeX support. It's a serious performance drain, so we'd have to see that your site was seriously crippled by its absence.– AarthiAug 16, 2012 at 17:24
-
1@Aarthi "It's a serious performance drain" Even if it is seldom used? Aug 17, 2012 at 1:42
-
@curiousguy Yes, because MathJax appears on every page regardless of use. It's taxing.– AarthiAug 17, 2012 at 2:10
-
2
-
kfromKDF(p,s)", I'd much rather have MathML notation, rather than the code-style one. It looks cleaner, and makes identification of symbols much easier. This is also useful for notation of security mechanisms, which are outside the scope of crypto.