- From: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:14:49 -0500
- To: Frédéric WANG <fred.wang@free.fr>
- Cc: Neil Soiffer <Neils@dessci.com>, www-math@w3.org
Frédéric WANG wrote: > For the moment, I treat "radical", "madruwb" & "longdiv" notations as > special cases: > - In combination with other notations, only the "special" notation is > displayed. > - When several "special" notations are used, an arbitrary priority order > allows to determine which one to display. > > This behavior gives the same result as the test image, but since you > said it's a bug I suppose I need to change that. Even if I agree > overlapping things like radical+madruwb+circle is not really relevant, I > think the MathML spec should says something about these combinations. > The simplier is to indicate that notations always overlap. Certainly simplest to spec, though it would be hard to do in lead :> We need to remember to add a sentence about this to the spec --- it didn't make it into the current public draft. > Fred > > PS: FYI, the current version of my patch allows Firefox to deal with all > the MathML 2 notation values. This is good news; Thanks!! >> I'm going through old email and noticed I hadn't replied to this. >> Sorry for the delay. >> >> There is no reason that radical should be special. It is a bug in the >> test image (and in MathPlayer). On the other hand, it is hard to >> imagine a case where the radical and some other enclose effect want to >> overlap -- usually one would be nested inside the other (and hence, >> nested mencloses would be used). >> >> Neil >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:56 AM, <fred.wang@free.fr >> <mailto:fred.wang@free.fr>> wrote: >> >> Thanks for all your anwsers. In what I did for Firefox, the >> notations overlap so >> I agree with this option. However, as Bruce indicated, some >> combinations are not >> clear: for instance in the MathML testsuite, there is a notation >> "radical >> circle"[1]. What are the rules you used to establish that only a >> radical should >> be drawn (incompatibility between notations, priority, order of >> values...)? >> >> [1] >> >> http://www.w3.org/Math/testsuite/build/main/Presentation/GeneralLayout/menclose/menclose1-full.xhtml >> >> >> > I'm very glad to hear you are improving Firefox's support. The >> answer to >> > your question is that they do *not* nest. Use nested mencloses >> to achieve >> > that. The order is not important. >> > >> > Neil Soiffer >> > Senior Scientist >> > Design Science, Inc. >> > www.dessci.com <http://www.dessci.com> >> > ~ Makers of Equation Editor, MathType, MathPlayer and MathFlow ~ >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Bruce Miller >> <bruce.miller@nist.gov <mailto:bruce.miller@nist.gov>> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > fred.wang@free.fr <mailto:fred.wang@free.fr> wrote: >> > > >> > >> Hi all, >> > >> >> > >> I'm trying to add support for <menclose/> in Firefox and I >> wonder what >> > >> should be >> > >> displayed when several values are given to the "notation" >> attribute. What >> > >> I >> > >> think is that order and repetition of the values don't >> matter: "box circle >> > >> box" >> > >> is the same as "box circle" or "circle box". Is it right? >> > >> >> > > >> > > Interesting question >> > > [... that the WG should sort out for MathML 3 :> ] >> > > >> > > My first inclination would be to think of them as >> > > nesting (a box around a circle around the content, >> > > versus a circle around a box around the content), >> > > simply because it is hard to see (and harder to specify) >> > > how many of the various pairs should overlap >> > > (eg. how should "radical roundedbox" look?) >> > > >> > > OTOH, I suspect the original intention was that >> > > they would overlap (in which case the order doesn't >> > > matter), since that can create many more effects >> > > than we would want to list as explicit values. >> > > >> > > Further, nesting can easily, and more clearly, >> > > be done simply by nesting <menclose>'s. >> > > >> > > If this is the concensus of the WG, we at least >> > > should clarify this. >> > > >> > > speaking for myself, >> > > bruce >> > > >> > > -- >> > > bruce.miller@nist.gov <mailto:bruce.miller@nist.gov> >> > > http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/ >> <http://math.nist.gov/%7EBMiller/> <http://math.nist.gov/%7EBMiller/> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > -- bruce.miller@nist.gov http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/
Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 14:15:45 UTC