Re: Summary of MathML call meeting

OK, but this general principal is a bit subjective, compared to the one
"deprecated implies not in core". For example, you mentioned that
munder/mover are less common, but they are still used a lot in my
opinion (e.g. $\sum_{i \in I} \overline{a_i}$). You also suggest that we
have duplication between all these script elements but there are subtle
differences. For example SubSuperscriptGapMin,
SuperscriptBottomMaxWithSubscript are taken into account in msubsup
layout (or displaystyle="false" munderover with largeop base) but not in
msub/msup layout. Karl Tomlinson (Mozilla) suggested that special
treatment for empty boxes in msubsup would bring extra complexity (
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=827713#c36 ).

The two cases I mentioned seem to be at the level "never seen in any Web
page" but again some people might think differently. mglyph has never
been implemented in browsers and there is not any plan to do it.
notation="radical" is implemented in Gecko/WebKit but brings extra
complexity. Incidentally, these two kinds of argument are also important
to take into account by this CG IMHO.

In any case, we are not in hurry I'll wait formal approval (or not) next
Monday before moving on with notation="radical" and <mglyph>.

On 14/03/2019 23:01, Neil Soiffer wrote:
> Yes. I believe we agreed that duplicative things that aren't commonly
> used could be removed from core because a polyfill can easily generate
> them. An example of something that can't be removed is <msup> even
> though it could potentially be turned into <msubsup>; the feeling was
> that was way too common and core should handle that. We didn't discuss
> munder/mover. I think these are much less common than msup/msub, but I
> would think some sort of symmetry argument would mean that if msup is
> in core, mover should be in core.
>
>     Neil
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 8:55 AM David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk
> <mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     On 14/03/2019 13:38, Frédéric Wang wrote:
>     > Do I remember correctly that we agreed to remove menclose "radical"
>     > notation and mglyph (currently not in core):
>
>     I'd have no objection to those not being in core.
>
>     David
>
>
>     *Disclaimer*
>
>     The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in
>     England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered
>     office is: Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR,
>     United Kingdom. Please see our Privacy Notice
>     <https://www.nag.co.uk/content/privacy-notice> for information on
>     how we process personal data and for details of how to stop or
>     limit communications from us.
>
>     This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses and malware, and may
>     have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in
>     Software as a Service (SaaS) for business.
>

-- 
Frédéric Wang