- From: Frédéric WANG <fred.wang@free.fr>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:25:02 +0200
- To: www-math@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3f27cd5d-ebc0-4506-eea8-822933a187bb@free.fr>
Le 26/07/2016 à 14:06, Stephen Watt a écrit : > I don't see why there would be inconsistencies in implementation. A > reasonable developer would just have <msqrt> call the same code as > <menclose notation="radical">. It depends what you mean by "call the same code". Also note that mroot has similar layout but some differences (more parameters for the index, only two children and no inferred mrow). In WebKit, msqrt & mroot share the same C++ class. In the past, the code of msqrt was reused for menclose by creating anonymous nodes which caused complaints from Google at the time they review it and will make things even worse now that they are moving to stricter rules for their layout classes. Fortunately menclose@notation was removed so it's no longer an issue. In Gecko, msqrt & menclose share the same C++ class. At the moment it does not share code with mroot so there are duplicate logic which may lead to potential inconsistencies. Personally, I would say it's best to share msqrt / mroot implementations as they have clear and simple rules to perform the layout. menclose has many notations, must handle multiple notations at the same time and is more complex, so merging it into msqrt (as done is Gecko) makes the code less readable. Frédéric PS: Some developers will be happy to know that they are "unreasonable": https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues/101
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2016 13:25:38 UTC