Re: Mathematical selection

Richard Kaye wrote:
> Do inferred mrow's cause problems?  (All considered, I am not sure this feature is a good  thing...) 
remember... you need to compare to the dumb text-like selection that 
there's currently.
> 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.
Would pasting the text be better ? I doubt.
The problem when pasting complete expressions is that you may hit 
inconvertible operators (e.g. an integral in Gap)... aside of that, I 
believe a too large selection is not an issue.

> 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 11:37:56 UTC