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

Re: Last Call Working Draft of MathML 2.0, 2nd edition published

From: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 17:32:34 +0200
Message-ID: <3EBBCA12.6040609@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
To: "Pepping, Simon (ELS)" <S.Pepping@elsevier.nl>
CC: "'Robert Miner'" <RobertM@dessci.com>, mf@w3.org, www-math@w3.org, chamlin@aip.org

>
>
>- Thinking about this, I feel that the sum example is wrong. <mi
>mathvariant="bold">A</a> is a semantically different character from A, <mo
>mathvariant="bold">&sum;</a> is only a style variant of this operator, and
>that is not what mathvariant is supposed to convey.
>
Actually, I had a similar case that I wanted to do in TeX recently, but 
couldn't figure out how.  In the Lambek Calculus which I used in my 
dissertation there are left and right slashes that do *not* mean 
division. Their corresponding 'multiplication' has a black bullet 
notation (probably meant originally as a bold multiplication point), and 
therefore using a mathvariant=bold of the slashes would have made 
excellent sense in that notation (indeed, as I said, I actually went and 
tried to do that by wrapping a \mathbf around the slashes, but that 
didn't appear to work, so I just gave up on that idea).  Since the 
meaning of those slashes is different from regular division and 
set-difference, say, the mathvariant solution would have been quite 
appropriate by your standard as it was meant to underscore a deeper 
semantic distinction.

This is just meant to help clarify the situation a bit better, but in no 
way as an attempt to solve the actual question itself, which I gladly 
leave to the experts.

 -- Andreas
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 11:33:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:54 GMT