From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>

Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:33:11 -0500

To: www-math@w3.org

Message-ID: <i7hdmwwmwo.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:33:11 -0500

To: www-math@w3.org

Message-ID: <i7hdmwwmwo.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> writes: > The main difficulty is multi line displayed mathematics, the problem > here is not so much a difference between the languages, so much as the > way they are used: > > The TeXbook says of this: > > > It's quite an art to decide how to break long displayed formulas into > several lines; TeX never attempts to break them, because no set of > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > rules is really adequate. The author of a mathematical manuscript is > generally the best judge of what to do, since break positions depend > on subtle factors of mathematical exposition. For example, it is often > desirable to emphasize some of the symmetry or other structure that > underlies a formula, and such things require a solid understanding of > exactly what is going on in that formula. > > So in TeX all line breaking is manual, and in LaTeX we have the many > different flavour of alignment possibilities given by the amsmath > package for example. Exactly. The LaTeX and amsmath display models are good, and they can be modelled in author-level XML. I've talked quite a bit with colleagues about this. So far everyone agrees that online displays should not be broken except as explicitly provided by the author. So when a browser window becomes too small -- and this has been part of my conversations -- I think it correct to say that the math community wants displays to be overscanned. That is, a visual user agent should provide for horizonal scrolling. CSS makes this easy to arrange. -- BillReceived on Wednesday, 8 December 2004 20:33:14 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:36 UTC
*