# Re: Question about example in MathML2 Spec (Second Edition)

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:05:25 GMT
Message-Id: <200411021705.RAA32007@penguin.nag.co.uk>



> I am wondering that the rendering example of 3.4.6.2 (image/3022.gif
> and 3023.gif) of MathML2 Spec (Second Edition) is not correct.

I think I agree with your analysis. On the other hand that probably
means the using integrals is a bad example for munderover as I think the
usual convention for integrals would be to always use subscript position
eg plain tex and latex both define \int as
\def\int{\intop\nolimits}
^^^^^^^
which is why the sample (latex generated) rendering comes out as it
does.

This probably means that the operator dictionary for int ought to say
moveable=true (or the markup for integrals could use msubsup rather than
munderover, which is what is generated by the ctop stylesheet at
www.w3.org/Math/XSL from the content mathml markup for integrals)

As far as your renderer implementation goes, I think that means that you
should implement the behaviour as described in the text, not as shown in
the example, which will result in the limits coming above and below the
integral not to the side.

I just checked the XML version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/chapter3.xml#id.3.4.6.3
in both IE6/MathPlayer and Mozilla and both result in the limits being
above and below the operator, so both agree with your analysis that the
example rendering in the document is incorrect.

Thanks for this report.

I haven't checked this reply with the interest group members but
assuming it's correct we should get the errata page for the 2nd edition
(which is currently empty) updated...

David

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The