"must"? A web4 browser would probably use a "runtime compiled" implementation.
"Whilst that may still pass poorly-structured documents and result in poorly-formed output" - this by the way happens much more often with LaTeX compared to html in my experience.
A LaTeX document is virtually never directly consumed by a reader. It's first converted ("compiled") into some consumable format. Typically PDF/Postscript, though there can be numerous others.
You seem to be unfamiliar with this aspect of the system?
Don't make assumptions about me. A LaTeX document is also virtually never directly consumed by web browsers.
In addition to that we are considering LaTeX for the web, not DVI, not PDF, not something else that you compile LaTeX into.
And well, given the amount of people that use overleaf I would say that a lot of people (although writers instead of readers) consume LaTeX.
(Btw, you can compile html too, try printing it as ps/pdf document)
That the Web is principally oriented around HTML is something of an accident of history. Note that any data can be transferred over HTTP(S), including, on occasion, either compiled or uncompiled LaTeX.
I am not making assumptions about what you do or do not know. I'm telling you how you're being perceived. You have the power to alter that perception. You've failed to use it.
"Note that any data can be transferred over HTTP(S), including, on occasion, either compiled or uncompiled LaTeX."
Sure, but I don't see what this has to do with anything.
As for your perception, I don't care :)
Keep it to yourself next time please. You too are being perceived in a certain way as well but telling you how would likely be against this site's rules.
Username checks out. It's not the same: HTML is interpreted and often modified on the fly (with JavaScript), with the source being a click away, but it's still just HTML. On the other hand Latex documents are compiled into other formats like PDF that are distributed, instead of the Latex source.
- The compilation means that there's at least a check for syntactic validity before any old crap is published.
- JS-based HTML can be fully dynamic to the extent that there's no sense of an underlying document at all. There are times when this is useful. That is an exceedingly small minority of the cases in which it is used. The fact that it's often preferable to rerender an HTML document as PDF, simply for readability, let alone archival, should speak volumes.
"Whilst that may still pass poorly-structured documents and result in poorly-formed output" - this by the way happens much more often with LaTeX compared to html in my experience.