Re: Overall Directionality

That's a nice set of tests, although your header "with dir=ltr" should be
"with dir=rtl".  I (and the testsuite) missed the munder/mover cases, thanks
for remembering them.  FYI, are you aware of the directionality tests in the
MathML testsuite (under Topics/Bidi)?  They start at
http://www.w3.org/Math/testsuite/build/main/Topics/BiDi/Complex/Maghreb1-full.xhtml.
Most involve Arabic letters, but that's the use case for "rtl", so it
shouldn't be an extra burden.

Would it be ok to add your test to the testsuite?

I'll bring up your other suggestions in the conference call this week.

Neil Soiffer
Senior Scientist
Design Science, Inc.
www.dessci.com
~ Makers of MathType, MathFlow, MathPlayer, MathDaisy, WebEQ, Equation
Editor ~


2010/1/5 Frédéric WANG <fred.wang@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
>
>