- From: Pepping, Simon (ELS) <S.Pepping@elsevier.nl>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:51:09 +0100
- To: "'Robert Miner'" <RobertM@dessci.com>
- Cc: mf@w3.org, www-math@w3.org, chamlin@aip.org
Robert Miner [mailto:RobertM@dessci.com] wrote on 05 May 2003 16:53: > Hi. > > > In a recent discussion with publishing colleagues the > following question > > came up: What is the meaning of > > > > <mi mathvariant="bold">𝔸</mi> > > > > Is it at all allowed? If the answer is clear, then maybe > the explanation in > > the spec should be expanded to include it. Or is it not > possible to give a > > definite answer in the current version of MathML? > > My opinion is that it's allowed, but not meaningful, and probably > shouldn't have any effect on rendering. The relevant paragraphs from > section 3.2.2 of the spec that I base this on is: > > "A issue arises in that the natural interpretations of the > mathvariant > attribute values only make sense for certain characters. > For example, > there is no clear cut rendering for a 'fraktur' alpha, or a 'bold > italic' Kanji character. In general, the only cases that > have a clear > interpretation are exactly the ones that correspond to SMP Math > Alphanumeric Symbol characters. > > "Consequently, style sheet authors and application developers are > encouraged in the strongest possible terms to respect the obvious > typographical interpretation of the mathvariant attribute > when applied > to characters that have SMP Math Alphanumeric Symbol > counterparts. In > all other cases, it is up to the renderer to determine > what effect, if > any, the mathvariant attribute will have. For example, a renderer > might sensibly choose to display a token with the contents ∑ (a > character with no SMP counterpart) in bold face font if it has the > mathvariant attribute set to 'bold' or to 'bold-fraktur', and to > display it in a default Roman font if the mathvariant > attribute is set > to 'fraktur'. As this example indicates, authors should > refrain from > using the mathvariant attribute with characters that do > not have SMP > counterparts, since renderings may not be useful or predictable. " I guess I should have read that section better. Still I am not quite satisfied. - The notion of correspondence is not well defined. It suggests something similar to lc-uc correspondence, but it is not defined. - Since the SMP Math Alphanumeric Symbol characters only contain latin and greek alphabetic characters and digits, I keep the feeling that mathvariant only makes sense with those characters. - Thinking about this, I feel that the sum example is wrong. <mi mathvariant="bold">A</a> is a semantically different character from A, <mo mathvariant="bold">∑</a> is only a style variant of this operator, and that is not what mathvariant is supposed to convey. With kind regards, Simon Pepping DTD Development and Maintenance Elsevier s.pepping@elsevier.com www.elsevier.com/locate/sgml
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 11:01:20 UTC