From: Frédéric WANG <fred.wang@free.fr>

Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:28:53 +0100

Message-ID: <4B433E95.9070704@free.fr>

To: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>

Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 13:27:01 UTC

Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:28:53 +0100

Message-ID: <4B433E95.9070704@free.fr>

To: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>

Hi all, I've started to work on implementation of the overall directionality. I've written a testcase (see attachment) that would certainly be useful to discuss the expected rendering and help to test implementations. For most presentation elements I think the way they have to be drawn in RTL is clearly described so I just give a few remarks: - For some elements such that mpadded or mfrac, I think it could be useful to give a reference to section 3.1.5.1 to recall how the terms leading/trailing and left/right are used. - For mmultiscripts, the sentence "It supports both postscripts (to the right of the base in visual notation) and prescripts (to the left of the base in visual notation)" does not take into account the RTL case and is redundant with what is said at the beginning of the parent section: "Note that ordinary scripts follow the base (on the right in LTR context, but on the left in RTL context); prescripts precede the base (on the left (right) in LTR (RTL) context).". - For menclose, the directionality is mentioned twice: "The case of notation="radical" is equivalent to the msqrt schema (and thus affected by the directionality)." "(Note that "updiagonalstrike" ("downdiagonalstrike") is taken to be a line from the lower-left to upper-right (upper-left to lower-right, resp.), independent of directionality.)" As I understand, only radical depends on the directionality. Hence rather than these two comments in parentheses I suggest to do as in other sections i.e. use a separate sentence where all the discussion about the directionality of menclose is moved. I think something containing "Among the notations from the recommended list, only radical is affected by the directionality" could indicate clearly what is expected for menclose. - For mfenced, directionality is well described via the equivalent markup, so I just give an off-topic remark: I think that the two equivalences given in section 3.3.8.1 are, strictly speaking, not the same as the general equivalence of 3.3.8.2. The parenthesis and comma are marked as fence="true" and separator="true" in the Operator Dictionary but this one is just a suggestion and an implementation may not treat them as fences/separator. Regards, Frédéric Wang

- application/xhtml+xml attachment: mathml_overall_directionality.xhtml

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:42 UTC
*