- From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexey@feldgendler.ru>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:59:32 +0700
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:24:36 +0700, White Lynx <whitelynx at operamail.com> wrote: >> Why have <f> at all? When I'm writing about <var>x</var>, why should I >> write <f><var>x</var></f>? What would be the difference? I think a >> <formula> element is only needed for what is called "display equations" -- >> they are rendered out of line, usually centered, and sometimes numbered. >> >> That way, inline math would require no special element at all -- just >> write math in the middle of a sentence, and it should work. On the other >> hand, when math is put inside a <formula>, it's displayed on a line by >> itself, centered, numbered etc. And, by the way, one can actually have >> just plain text inside a formula, such as some statement in prose that >> needs to be centered and numbered like other formulae. > It matters from both structural (marks formula explicitly) and presentational > point of view (consider line breaks inside formulae, text justification algorithms that > should not affect math formulae, different fonts that user may want to use for text > and maths, possible CSS extensions like text-transformation:math-italic; etc.). What exactly is a formula? For example, I write that 2+2=4 means that the expression 2+2 equals to 4. What is a formula in the paragraph above, and what is not? One would most certainly agree that "2+2=4" is a formula (it's a complete equation). Likewise, most people will tell you that "4" is not a formula and needs not be marked as such -- or else any number inside prose should have been marked up. What about 2+2? Where exactly lies the separation between a formula and non-formula? I admit that the same problem exists in TeX: one could write 4 or $4$. -- Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru> [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2006 03:59:32 UTC