W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > February 2004

Re: <mi> 1 </mi>

From: Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 07:20:50 +1100 (EST)
To: Luca Padovani <lpadovan@cs.unibo.it>
Cc: www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402020713370.13293-100000@lorien.yeslogic.com>

Hi Luca,

> By design, the only cases that have an unambiguous interpretation are
> exactly the ones that correspond to SMP Math Alphanumeric Symbol
> characters, which are enumerated in Section 6.2.3 Mathematical
> Alphanumeric Symbols Characters. In all other cases, it is suggested
> that renderers ignore the value of the mathvariant attribute if it is
> present"

Oh, that is interesting -- so the mathvariant attribute is really
transforming characters rather than changing font (even if you might
implement it by changing font).

So this example:

	<mi mathvariant="bold-italic"> x </mi>

should be treated as if the x was actually:

	<mi> &#x1D499; </mi>


In that case there can be no italic digits, for as you say there are no 
such characters to map them to. However, what about this:

	<mi> h </mi>

As far as I can see, there is no "MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL H" in UNICODE, 
as the code point between G and I is left unassigned U+1D455.

Does this mean that conforming implementations should keep a table of 
which characters must be mapped in this way, and should therefore leave 
the h in a non-italic font?

Best regards,


YesLogic Prince prints XML!
Received on Sunday, 1 February 2004 16:23:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:34 UTC