CodeCogs, Sorry about the confusion. When talking in the las paragraph of my post about URLs being dissimilar I was talking about the on-line editor and images rendered in it.

I.e. http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php?latex=CodeCogs%20is%20%20great for the on-line editor

versus http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?CodeCogs%20is%20great for the rendered image.

When you compare both you will see that to change the URL of the image to the URL of the renderer virtually the entire URL has to be changed, which is too much to remember if you want to keep a shortcut to the editor (in Google Docs one would need to do so typically as a comment); to insert the image in Google Docs, the URL for the image would need to be copied but separately the URL for the editor would have to be extracted from the code rendered as HTML (Edit) in the CodeCogs on-line editor. It would be much easier to get from the image URL to the on-line editor if both URLs were more similar,

e.g. http://edit.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php?type=gif&latex=CodeCogs%20is%20%20great for the editor

and http://image.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php?type=gif&latex=CodeCogs%20is%20%20great for the image.

This way a user having the link to the image would only need to change in the URL image to edit to get to the on-line editor to make further changes. This may not be the most elegant way (and the base URL should perhaps be shortened even more to e.g. http://.codecogs.com/la/tex.php? to do away with superfluous clutter and because this would allow a longer LaTeX expression to be added; as some applications from which the URL would be invoked impose their own limit, e.g. hyperlinks invoked from Google Docs spreadsheets) but it certainly would make it much easier to edit an rendered image