W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > November 2008

Re: menclose: several values in the "notation" attribute

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
Message-id: <491D87D9.7070403@nist.gov>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:13:02 GMT