loopspace
commented
6 years ago Hi Mike,
I don't see any obvious obstacles.
As you want the math to essentially pass through, I would look at the instiki version with the itex handling for the math. That defines certain commands as essentially pass-through, which has the advantage that you can do things like \newcommand\R{\mathbb{R}} in your preamble and that will mean that \R expands to \mathbb{R} which gets passed through into the output file. (This was the original motivation - writing nLab articles in which I could write \R and have it expand to \mathbb{R}.)
I'd be happy to advise, but you're right that my time is a bit more limited than it used to be.
mikeshulman
Hi Andrew,
In searching for a way to automatically translate LaTeX to WeBWorK problem files, I stumbled across your tex.se question which led me here. This project looks really neat, although I haven't tried it yet.
Do you think it would be feasible to add a WeBWorK output mode? It would probably require defining some additional commands to specify the answer blanks and the correct answers, as well as ideally some macros to initialize variables (perhaps randomly), but I expect that should be manageable. I'm thinking of something like a LaTeX-based format that could play the same role as this XML format. WeBWorK PGML formatting is basically a dialect of Markdown with an escape for dropping into TeX math mode, so probably your main markdown code could be reused, and the math could hopefully just be passed through verbatim without needing mathml/itex/etc.
I recognize of course that you are busy and unlikely to have the time or interest to do such a thing yourself. I'm mainly asking whether any obvious obstacles occur to you, so that if I try to do it myself I'll be more confident that I'm not wasting my time.