9
$\begingroup$

Assuming that we get the MathJax support, do we need the mhchem extension? We have this enabled on the Chemistry site, and it's incredibly helpful there in showing anything more complicated than a single molecule. Because the history of chemistry will be on topic here, I expect that it will be helpful here as well.

I don't expect this will be quite as necessary as the broader MathJax support, but I still think it's useful enough and simple enough to add.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I have alot of chemistry related questions I will want to ask but few involve organic chemistry. Would adding this extension cause any issues? Are there any reasons we wouldn't want it? $\endgroup$ – kaine Oct 29 '14 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ If the folks at chemistry.SE feel they need it, then I would say we need it. $\endgroup$ – Jack M Nov 10 '14 at 18:49
4
$\begingroup$

I think there is no harm in extra functionality using the mhchem extension. Even if it is not used too often it is not a burden compared with the rest of MathJax.

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .