W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > April 2006

RE: Technical reasons for some options taken on design of MathML

From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3124.217.124.69.214.1145290636.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>
To: <www-math@w3.org>

White Lynx wrote:

[snip]

> Yes mmultiscripts is too awkward for pure CSS rendering. You may try
something like
> <mpsup><mi>prescript</mi><mi>Base</mi></mpsup>
> <mpsub><mi>prescript</mi><mi>Base</mi></mpsub>
> <mpsupsub><mprescripts><mi>prescript</mi><mi>prescript</mi></mprescripts><mi>Base</mi></mpsupsub>
> for prescripts.

[snip]

I said in a previous communication that the phrase "Elsevier adopts
MathML" was to be very debatable. It may be interesting to note here that
in last Elsevier’s CEP 1.1.0-1.1.3 (the core of Elsevier’s 2005 XML DTDs
family)

238
   U
92

is encoded like

<ce:sup loc="pre">238</ce:sup><ce:inf loc="pre">92</ce:inf>U

with ce the "core" namespace
xmlns:ce="http://www.elsevier.com/xml/common/dtd"

Above encoding is very similar to original XML-MAIDEN approach and related
to changes needed on MathML above listed.


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Received on Monday, 17 April 2006 16:17:29 GMT

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