From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:36:11 +0300

Message-ID: <4433817B.4030405@peda.net>

To: www-math@w3.org

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:36:11 +0300

Message-ID: <4433817B.4030405@peda.net>

To: www-math@w3.org

juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: > I have received a private reply to one of my questions of MathML technical > design. I post it next (except name) (it was posted by me, it was private reply by mistake) >> juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: >>> It is more, I repeat again, what is the MathML representation for the >>> structure >>> >>> Over >>> sup >>> Base >>> sub >>> under >>> >>> ? >> Is this a trick question? > > It is just a technical question would be easily answered from the > specification, no? > >> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> >> <munderover> >> <msubsup> >> <mi>Base</mi> >> <mi>sub</mi> >> <mi>sup</mi> >> </msubsup> >> <mi>under</mi> >> <mi>Over</mi> >> </munderover> >> </math> >> >> Something wrong with this? The above could be generated, for >> example, by a simple parser from following input: >> (Base_sub^sup)__under^^Over > > Nothing wrong (I understand that your use of mi tokens was purely > illustrative) except I was asking for the encoding of > > Over > sup > Base > sub > under > > The basis for over and under scripts in your example is incorrect. Okay, could you point us to correct basis for over and under scripts? If you render the above MathML example by e.g. Gecko rendering engine you end up something fairly similar to above ASCII presentation. If you want to transfer more semantics you have to give us more information but just the ASCII rendering of the end result. Are you asking for a way to markup a multiscript where you have scripts at N, NE, SE and S locations (compass directions)? Would you be happy with a multiscript construct that allowed 8 positions (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW)? Or would there be need for more script positions? Multiscript rendering vs. actual logic I believe that there's always some logic for multiscript rendering that would result from some kind of nested elements. If you have rendering such as sup BASE sub then it's always logically either "(BASE_sub)^sup" or "(BASE^sup)_sub. Usually the former. Likewise, if you have markup like ____ BASE sub it's either "(BASE with overline)_sub" or "(BASE_sub) with overline". I've yet to see a construct where you *logically* have "BASE with both overline and subscript". There's, of course, the rendering. I understand the need to render sup BASE sub instead of sup BASE sub where the superscript would be leftwards from "BASE_sub" combination. However, it's only rendering detail, the logic still applies that it's (usually) "BASE_sub" to power of "sup". -- MikkoReceived on Wednesday, 5 April 2006 13:51:41 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:58 GMT
*