W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > August 2003

Re: menclose

From: <jpederse@wiley.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:28:30 -0400
To: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>
Cc: www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0BD17660.2C9570F5-ON85256D86.00649607@wiley.com>


Hi Robert,

I suppose my question really was what were top and bottom for. But now that
I'm remembering about corners, I'm guessing they are to be used in
combinations with left and right to make corners?

And, I may regret bringing this up, but how would I use verticalstrike to
help represent "crossing out", say, the first column and first row of a 3 x
3 matrix, to indicate the 2 x 2 matrix that is left in determinant or
pivot-type subcalculation? Or is that not the sort of thing it's intended
for? (I'm just having trouble seeing how to apply verticalstrike at all to
anything more than a single character -- it seems to be at odds with the
row-oriented markup for tables, which are the primary mechanism for
vertical stacking.)

John.



                                                                                                         
                      Robert Miner                                                                       
                      <RobertM@dessci.c        To:       jpederse@wiley.com                              
                      om>                      cc:       www-math@w3.org                                 
                                               Subject:  Re: menclose                                    
                      08/18/03 01:09 PM                                                                  
                                                                                                         
                                                                                                         





Hi.

John Pedersen wrote:

> Fantastic! Thanks very much for letting me know.
>
> I was interested to see "top" and "bottom". If these are for
> overlining and underlining(?), will this construction with menclose
> now be preferred over <mover>, <munder> with &OverBar;? If so, we
> should perhaps remove OverBar from the list Simon had started.
>
> > To:       jpederse@wiley.com, S.Pepping@elsevier.nl
> > cc:       ww-math@w3.org
> > Subject:  Re: menclose
> > Date:     08/15/03 03:35 PM

> >
> > > I'm waiting on this naming issue to be resolved so that we can finish
> > > marking up a product. So the sooner it can be decided, the better.
> >
> > The Math WG discussed this, and the list of names we settled on was:
> >
> >  longdiv | actuarial | radical | box | roundedbox | circle | left |
> >  right | top | bottom | updiagonalstrike | downdiagonalstrike |
> >  verticalstrike | horizontalstrike

Obviously there is an overlap in functionality, and one could use
menclose for overlining and underlining.  But my personal view is that
this is kind of abusing the notion of menclose, so I would prefer to
see under/overlining continue to be done with the mover/munder
construction.

However, I'm open to hearing an argument to the contrary.

--Robert

------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Robert Miner                                RobertM@dessci.com
MathML 2.0 Specification Co-editor                    651-223-2883
Design Science, Inc.   "How Science Communicates"   www.dessci.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 18 August 2003 14:28:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:55 GMT