- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:37:38 +0200
- To: R.W.Kaye@bham.ac.uk, Public MathML mailing list <www-math@w3.org>
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. paul > 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