- From: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:30:05 -0500
- To: paul@activemath.org
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
Hi Paul, > But isn't this a good cause for most MathML-presentation > implementations to provide no (or a poor) sub-term selection mechanism? > While in my copy-and-paste explorations, I could see little done in the > area of sub-term selection. This is a good point, but I'm not sure which is cause and which effect. > As I understand it, parallel markup is required if one wants to offer > correct sub-term selection (i.e. a selection mechanism where the 2+3 is > highlighted when the mouse as dragged over "2+"). At some level, this is obviously true, since a software package that is going to deal with sub-term selection is going to track the relation between the content markup in the source and the presentation markup it is displaying. But the exact selection behavior is somewhat independent. In WebEQ we chose to allow one to select the 2+, but if you copy it to the clipboard, you will just get the corresponding presentation fragment. If you select the entire 2+3, then you will get the corresponding content markup, since there is a correspondence at that level. We could have done it differently, of course, but the choice isn't really a function of the markup. The obvious exception is that if you, the author, want _control_ over the subterm selection by changing the source, then parallel markup of some sort is going to be necessary. --Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Robert Miner RobertM@dessci.com W3C Math Interest Group Co-Chair 651-223-2883 Design Science, Inc. "How Science Communicates" www.dessci.com ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 19 April 2004 13:44:00 UTC