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

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">∑</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. -- AndreasReceived on Friday, 9 May 2003 11:33:22 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:33 UTC
*