- From: Frédéric WANG <fred.wang@free.fr>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:28:53 +0100
- To: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4B433E95.9070704@free.fr>
Hi all,
I've started to work on implementation of the overall
directionality. I've written a testcase (see attachment) that would
certainly be useful to discuss the expected rendering and help to test
implementations. For most presentation elements I think the way they
have to be drawn in RTL is clearly described so I just give a few remarks:
- For some elements such that mpadded or mfrac, I think it could be
useful to give a reference to section 3.1.5.1 to recall how the terms
leading/trailing and left/right are used.
- For mmultiscripts, the sentence "It supports both postscripts (to the
right of the base in visual notation) and prescripts (to the left of the
base in visual notation)" does not take into account the RTL case and is
redundant with what is said at the beginning of the parent section:
"Note that ordinary scripts follow the base (on the right in LTR
context, but on the left in RTL context); prescripts precede the base
(on the left (right) in LTR (RTL) context).".
- For menclose, the directionality is mentioned twice:
"The case of notation="radical" is equivalent to the msqrt schema
(and thus affected by the directionality)."
"(Note that "updiagonalstrike" ("downdiagonalstrike") is taken to be
a line from the lower-left to upper-right (upper-left to lower-right,
resp.), independent of directionality.)"
As I understand, only radical depends on the directionality. Hence
rather than these two comments in parentheses I suggest to do as in
other sections i.e. use a separate sentence where all the discussion
about the directionality of menclose is moved. I think something
containing "Among the notations from the recommended list, only radical
is affected by the directionality" could indicate clearly what is
expected for menclose.
- For mfenced, directionality is well described via the equivalent
markup, so I just give an off-topic remark: I think that the two
equivalences given in section 3.3.8.1 are, strictly speaking, not the
same as the general equivalence of 3.3.8.2. The parenthesis and comma
are marked as fence="true" and separator="true" in the Operator
Dictionary but this one is just a suggestion and an implementation may
not treat them as fences/separator.
Regards,
Frédéric Wang
Attachments
- application/xhtml+xml attachment: mathml_overall_directionality.xhtml
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 13:27:01 UTC