- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:46:22 +0200
- To: m.kohlhase@iu-bremen.de
- Cc: Public MathML mailing list <www-math@w3.org>
Michael Kohlhase wrote: > we have already talked about this, and I would like to publically > re-state my opinion that only approach #2 can really work. Do you have pointers about this ? At least I don't think there's anyone implementing it... do I mistake ? If not... my +1 to put this in a revised spec (or a note?) as this is the only way to avoid trying to have scripts replace the work of selection and copy. > Of course, you will only realistically get parallel markup, if you > generate it from content-oriented methods anyway :-). The bone question is whether level 1 is still sensible... I sort of believe that if this is implemented, authors (and gui-editors) will put more brackets mrows... otherwise, we can, Can producers of plain MathML-presentation speak about it ? Are there situations where such a sub-term selection would be worse than the text selection? thanks paul
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 10:46:41 UTC