- From: Richard Kaye <R.W.Kaye@bham.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:04:01 +0100
- To: Public MathML mailing list <www-math@w3.org>
Do inferred mrow's cause problems? (All considered, I am not sure this feature is a good thing...) I can think of cases when you want to select the (inferred) mrow but in fact get the whole thing including the <math> tag and display="block" and goodness knows what else. Then naive pasting it into another document may not do what you want. Richard On Thursday 30 March 2006 11:46, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > 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 11:07:09 UTC