From: Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:09:45 +0200

Message-ID: <CABqxo80t5DLWyz3BQLvR1XOzcqCda1qSDavGWiUj0CCb8xof0w@mail.gmail.com>

To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Cc: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:09:45 +0200

Message-ID: <CABqxo80t5DLWyz3BQLvR1XOzcqCda1qSDavGWiUj0CCb8xof0w@mail.gmail.com>

To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Cc: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>

Thanks, David, for confirming the reading of the spec. So to guarantee \displaystyle we're supposed to do something like <mstyle scriptlevel="0"> <mtable displaystyle="true"> ... </mtable> </mstyle> To guarantee \textstyle something like <mstyle displaystyle="true" scriptlevel="0"> <mtable> ... </mtable> </mstyle> And <mfrac> <mtable displaystyle="true"> ... </mtable> <mrow> ... </mrow> </mfrac> would get us a table with displaystyle formatting, but in scriptstyle size (when used in an inline formula). (I admit I find that somewhat strange; oh well.) Thanks again for your quick response! Peter. On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:07 PM, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote: > On 17/09/2014 20:37, Peter Krautzberger wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> A follow-up question after Fred commented >> <https://github.com/dpvc/MathJax/commit/98e3f098bd519dabe9bf558736c5bf >> 6438fbc217> >> on our changes to MathJax (following the results of this discussion); >> these changes include resetting the scriptlevel to 0. To us, this >> seemed to make the most sense after the discussion: if display style >> wasn't supposed to be inherited, then scriptlevel seemed strange to >> inherit (also, there were some "matching TeX behavior" comments on >> this thread). >> >> To put it differently, we couldn't imagine how an author setting >> displaystyle to "true" would expect to stay at scriptlevel=1 (for >> example). The only use-case we could think of would be an array in a >> superscript or fraction, but this doesn't seem very likely. >> >> However, as Fred pointed out, the spec seems to read differently. >> Since displaystyle needed to be clarified, we thought it's best to >> ask for clarification on this as well. >> >> Thanks in advance, Peter. >> >> > I think the spec is clear, and the splitting of tex's \xxxstyle concept > into two separately settable parameters was certainly intentional: > > 3.1.6 says > > TEX's \displaystyle, \textstyle, \scriptstyle, and \scriptscriptstyle >> correspond to displaystyle and scriptlevel as "true" and "0", "false" >> and "0", "false" and "1", and "false" and "2", respectively. >> > > > > That choice inevitably means that there are combinations not reachable > in TeX (and thus uncommon to most authors and probably unlikely > to be used except in exceptional circumstances) but I think it's clear > that the spec intends that they are reachable. > > > > David > > > > > >Received on Thursday, 18 September 2014 21:10:12 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:47 UTC
*