MathJax VS pandoc

Developer tools point to MathJax https://www.mathjax.org/. If you disable javascript you can see some LaTex.

It is something we could add, but it is not planned in the near future. We also have requests for adding math notation (like https://www.mathjax.org/), and that could be a more general solution.

I don't know what Obsidian is, but if it's requiring old TeX math mode toggles (the double dollar sign), then it might not actually be using LaTeX underneath. Many tools that provide LaTeX-style syntax for equations are actually using something like MathJaX, BlahTex, or some custom system by which to translate LaTeX-like syntax into their own equation rendering. This often means you only get a pre-defined subset of what's possible with LaTeX (and the results are never quite faithful to how LaTeX would typeset them).

This will depend heavily on where you're asking the question, e.g. stackexchange has built in mathjax to render it. I'm going to assume you're intending to ask here (because that would make sense), in which case check out the bottom of the sidebar.

From the screenshot, Obsidian looks like a typical Markdown editor that supports some LaTeX math syntax, probably rendered with something like Mathjax. On the other hand, Xournalapp seems to actually use LaTeX, even allowing you to use LaTeX packages like graphicx, tikz, etc.

My main authoring tool is then Emacs Markdown Mode (https://jblevins.org/projects/markdown-mode/). For data entry, it comes with some bells and whistles similar to org-mode, like C-c C-l for inserting links etc.

I seldom export my notes for external usage, but if it is the case, I use lowdown (https://kristaps.bsd.lv/lowdown/) which also comes with some nice output targets (among the more unusual are Groff and Terminal). Of cource pandoc (https://pandoc.org/) does a very good job here, too.

This is one of those things that the ever-amazing pandoc (https://pandoc.org/) does very well, on top of supporting virtually every other document format.

Folks feel the same way about Markdown versus LaTeX: why use something significantly more complicated where a looser, human-readable grammar works better?

For any other situations, I use https://pandoc.org/, or, generate a Word doc scriptomatically.

pandoc toolchain pour builder une version confortable/imprimable en phase de travail (ePub, pdf, docx, html)

Congrats on the launch, I guess, but there are so many free options that I can't think of a situation where paying $0.25 per document would be justified...? Just to name a few:

Back in the days, I used to use XSL-FO [0] and it was okay. It was not very precise but it rarely if ever broke, and was perfectly integrated with an XML/XSLT solution. Yeah, this was a long time ago.

Last month I used html-to-pdfmake [1] and it's also not very precise and more fragile, but very efficient and fast.

Yet another approach would be to pro grammatically generate .rtf files (for example) and use Pandoc [2] to produce PDFs (I have not tried this in production but don't see why it wouldn't work).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSL_Formatting_Objects

[1] https://www.npmjs.com/package/html-to-pdfmake

[2] https://pandoc.org/

Others have mentioned static site generators. I like Hakyll [1] because it can tightly integrate with Pandoc [2] and allows you to develop custom solutions if your needs ever grow.

[1]: https://jaspervdj.be/hakyll/

[2]: https://pandoc.org/

Have you compared it with a conversion by pandoc (https://pandoc.org/)?

I have used it to kickstart a blogging project that I wish to come back to soon. The Lua inter-op for custom readers, writers and filters is great but I wish there was more editor integration and even perhaps an official IDE/editor with built-in debugging features (probably something already do-able with Emacs but I haven't checked). The only blocker for my project is no support for "ChunkedDoc" for Lua filters [1] which forces me to write more code and a complicated Makefile.

[1]: https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/9061