Re: menclose: several values in the "notation" attribute

I'm going through old email and noticed I hadn't replied to this.  Sorry for
the delay.

There is no reason that radical should be special.  It is a bug in the test
image (and in MathPlayer).  On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a case
where the radical and some other enclose effect want to overlap -- usually
one would be nested inside the other (and hence, nested mencloses would be
used).

    Neil


On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:56 AM, <fred.wang@free.fr> wrote:

> Thanks for all your anwsers. In what I did for Firefox, the notations
> overlap so
> I agree with this option. However, as Bruce indicated, some combinations
> are not
> clear: for instance in the MathML testsuite, there is a notation "radical
> circle"[1]. What are the rules you used to establish that only a radical
> should
> be drawn (incompatibility between notations, priority, order of values...)?
>
> [1]
>
> http://www.w3.org/Math/testsuite/build/main/Presentation/GeneralLayout/menclose/menclose1-full.xhtml
>
> > I'm very glad to hear you are improving Firefox's support.  The answer to
> > your question is that they do *not* nest.  Use nested mencloses to
> achieve
> > that.  The order is not important.
> >
> > Neil Soiffer
> > Senior Scientist
> > Design Science, Inc.
> > www.dessci.com
> > ~ Makers of Equation Editor, MathType, MathPlayer and MathFlow ~
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > fred.wang@free.fr wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> I'm trying to add support for <menclose/> in Firefox and I wonder what
> > >> should be
> > >> displayed when several values are given to the "notation" attribute.
> What
> > >> I
> > >> think is that order and repetition of the values don't matter: "box
> circle
> > >> box"
> > >> is the same as "box circle" or "circle box". Is it right?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Interesting question
> > > [... that the WG should sort out for MathML 3 :> ]
> > >
> > > My first inclination would be to think of them as
> > > nesting (a box around a circle around the content,
> > > versus a circle around a box around the content),
> > > simply because it is hard to see (and harder to specify)
> > > how many of the various pairs should overlap
> > > (eg. how should "radical roundedbox" look?)
> > >
> > > OTOH, I suspect the original intention was that
> > > they would overlap (in which case the order doesn't
> > > matter), since that can create many more effects
> > > than we would want to list as explicit values.
> > >
> > > Further, nesting can easily, and more clearly,
> > > be done simply by nesting <menclose>'s.
> > >
> > > If this is the concensus of the WG, we at least
> > > should clarify this.
> > >
> > > speaking for myself,
> > > bruce
> > >
> > > --
> > > bruce.miller@nist.gov
> > > http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/ <http://math.nist.gov/%7EBMiller/> <
> http://math.nist.gov/%7EBMiller/>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>