- From: White Lynx <whitelynx@operamail.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:16:40 +0400
Michel Fortin wrote:
> Yes, sup/sub will work like in HTML. This behavior is not perfect
> > in case
> > of resizable operators, fences, matrices and vectors however in
> > this cases operator limits (llim/ulim) and fence markers (marker/
> > submark) provide necessary functionality.
>
> That's what I thought. I'm not sure I like the idea of expressing
> exponents using either <sup> or <ulim> depending on what's preceding
> it.
Nor do I. I would prefer ISO 12083 model, but it does not work with CSS.
>
> I think all of this can be solved with one tiny change of paradigm.
> Instead of having <fence> decide itself of its size (which doesn't
> work with all kind of delimiters anyway), we could let the author
> decide of the delemiter's size around <fence>. If we had a size
> attribute, or something like that, with a list of predefined sizes
> for for <fence>, authors could choose the appropriate size according
> to the content.
>
It makes sense. One can add extra attribute to proposal.
>And, to return to my first point, elements following <fence> (like
> <sup>) could be aligned according to the fence's size:
>
> <fence size="medium">...</fence><sup>2</sup>
>
> fence[size="medium"] + sup {
> vertical-align: 5em;
> }
> Fence markers could be implemented in a similar way, and then you
> would no longer need a <fenced> element.
Adjacent sibling selector will match other things too.
Compare <fence size="medium">Base</fence><sup>2</sup>
and <fence size="medium">Content</fence>Base<sup>2</sup>.
Therefore you still need extra container like 'fenced'.
> It doesn't solve the thing for matrix though.
Yep.
--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze
Received on Saturday, 17 June 2006 06:16:40 UTC