- From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexey@feldgendler.ru>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:54:38 +0700
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:21:50 +0700, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote: >>> 2) Excellent typography. >> Can you specify point 2? > Not entirely because I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of > rendering mathematics. I will try to learn something so I can contribute > more. Here is what I can add: * perfectly kerned x/y style fractions (often poorly simulated in HTML as <sup>x</sup>/<sub>y</sub>) * correct continuation of long fractions on the next line * stacking of multiple over/underscripts * stacking of multiple signs like tildes, arrows etc above variables * stretching of tildes etc over complex expressions * stretching of brackets and integrals around complex expressions * matrices with cells of uniform size (as to accomodate for the largest expression found) * nice embedding of inline formulae in paragraphs of text (without unnecessarily increasing line spacing) >> So far people mentioned radicals and glyph shaping/kerning. > Another obvious issue is stretchy characters like integral signs and > brackets. Is the CSS model poerful enough to allow for this? If not, the > mosel needs to improve. TeX doesn't scale glyphs. It selects glyphs of different sizes, and for those that are larger than the larges glyphs available, it uses a pair of glyphs for the ends and fills the space between them with the third glyph (a line segment). But this approach is not possible in today's CSS, either. -- Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru> [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Received on Friday, 2 June 2006 06:54:38 UTC