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

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:02:05 +0100

Message-ID: <4F46008D.8080000@free.fr>

To: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>, mathjax-dev@googlegroups.com

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:02:05 +0100

Message-ID: <4F46008D.8080000@free.fr>

To: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>, mathjax-dev@googlegroups.com

Hi all, I'm thinking again about the rules for embellished operators and it seems to me that some elements are particular. For example if we ask how to determine the stretching of something like: <math> <mover> <mo>→</mo> <mtext>over</mtext> </mover> </math> The obvious answer is that the arrow should stretch to cover the over script. OK. However one can also say that the <mover> is an embellished element as a whole. Since is has no siblings, the arrow should have its default size. To give slightly less trivial examples, what should be the size of the arrows (100px or 200px?) in these examples: <math> <mover> <mspace width="100px"/> <munder> <mo>→</mo> <mspace width="200px"/> </munder> </mover> </math> and <math> <mover> <mspace width="200px"/> <munder> <mo>→</mo> <mspace width="100px"/> </munder> </mover> </math> An example with vertical stretching rules: <math> <mrow> <mspace height="50px" depth="50px"/> <mrow> <mo>|</mo> <mspace height="100px" depth="100px"/> </mrow> </mrow> </math> (I wonder if an attribute like embellishedop = "false" could help to prevent this kind of ambiguity?) I noticed this because implementing the complete embellished op rules caused a regression in Mozilla with MathML code generated by MathJax: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=687807Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 09:01:19 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:44 UTC
*