- From: <jpederse@wiley.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:28:30 -0400
- To: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
Hi Robert, I suppose my question really was what were top and bottom for. But now that I'm remembering about corners, I'm guessing they are to be used in combinations with left and right to make corners? And, I may regret bringing this up, but how would I use verticalstrike to help represent "crossing out", say, the first column and first row of a 3 x 3 matrix, to indicate the 2 x 2 matrix that is left in determinant or pivot-type subcalculation? Or is that not the sort of thing it's intended for? (I'm just having trouble seeing how to apply verticalstrike at all to anything more than a single character -- it seems to be at odds with the row-oriented markup for tables, which are the primary mechanism for vertical stacking.) John. Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.c To: jpederse@wiley.com om> cc: www-math@w3.org Subject: Re: menclose 08/18/03 01:09 PM Hi. John Pedersen wrote: > Fantastic! Thanks very much for letting me know. > > I was interested to see "top" and "bottom". If these are for > overlining and underlining(?), will this construction with menclose > now be preferred over <mover>, <munder> with ‾? If so, we > should perhaps remove OverBar from the list Simon had started. > > > To: jpederse@wiley.com, S.Pepping@elsevier.nl > > cc: ww-math@w3.org > > Subject: Re: menclose > > Date: 08/15/03 03:35 PM > > > > > I'm waiting on this naming issue to be resolved so that we can finish > > > marking up a product. So the sooner it can be decided, the better. > > > > The Math WG discussed this, and the list of names we settled on was: > > > > longdiv | actuarial | radical | box | roundedbox | circle | left | > > right | top | bottom | updiagonalstrike | downdiagonalstrike | > > verticalstrike | horizontalstrike Obviously there is an overlap in functionality, and one could use menclose for overlining and underlining. But my personal view is that this is kind of abusing the notion of menclose, so I would prefer to see under/overlining continue to be done with the mover/munder construction. However, I'm open to hearing an argument to the contrary. --Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Robert Miner RobertM@dessci.com MathML 2.0 Specification Co-editor 651-223-2883 Design Science, Inc. "How Science Communicates" www.dessci.com ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 18 August 2003 14:28:14 UTC