W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > June 2009

Re: mathvariant vs. plane 1

From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:07:52 +0200
Cc: www-math@w3.org
Message-Id: <EF55D6BE-E4C4-429F-82D0-ED9A405CBA09@activemath.org>
To: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>
There was a discussion about this topic a bit in April on the tex@lists.river-valley.com 
  mailing list.
Can't reach the archive.

It would be my naive interpretation that browsers should do the exact  
same thing if either you successfully use the plane-1 character or the  
character with the variant.
Unfortunately, it looks like the specification could not be fully  
detailed about that because plane-1 doesn't have all (fortunately?):
so it just says it "should" be equivalent.


Le 25-juin-09 à 15:44, Bruce Miller a écrit :

> I sure would like my Wronskians to be curly!
> (ie. <mi mathvariant="script">W</mi> )
> Alas, neither Firefox 3.0 nor Opera 10 support
> mathvariant="script" (nor bold-script, fraktur,
> bold-fraktur or double-struck). MathPlayer 2
> does, however (congratulations! :>)
> But it gets interesting: all three support
> the Plane 1 sub-blocks for script, fraktur and
> double-struck, given appropriate fonts!
> (alas, still not bold-script, nor bold-fraktur).
> Just to make it perverse, though, neither MathPlayer
> nor Opera support most of the other plane 1 sub-blocks
> (bold, bold-italic, sans-serif ...).
> So, if we can't solely use mathvariant, nor
> plane-1..... should we use a hybrid?
> Ie. Plane-1 chars for script, fraktur & double-struck
> and mathvariant for the others?
> (and avoid bold-script, bold-fraktur)
> Or are there any pending developments that
> would improve the situation in some of the
> browsers?

Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 15:08:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:41 UTC