- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2021 17:26:34 +0200
- To: www-math@w3.org
- Message-ID: <518C3DB8-DA1B-4813-AA7B-A52D4ACFBC2D@hoplahup.net>

Hello dear list, I had a funny demo yesterday in my lecture. I had input the following in Word: P(T<-t∨T>t)=0.05: ![](cid:EE131A71-EC8B-40B4-B3CD-DDE96CB88E5B@hoplahup.net "Screenshot 2021-07-09 at 17.11.54.png") However, a colleague that watched indicated I should rather split the probability measures in two which I started: ![](cid:BBCAEAA7-23B7-4929-8B2C-6B4FF6199C9C@hoplahup.net "Screenshot 2021-07-09 at 17.19.47.png") Splitting the formula by using cut and paste was not possible anymore, because an automatic box (an `mrow` I assume) had appeared inside the first bracket. Only partial cut and paste was possible. So it was easier to re-input the whole or abandon the change; I chose the second ;-). Word has influenced my mathematical discourse!. A few discussions around intents seem to imply that these boxes are a natural requirement which is understandable from the perspective of a navigation through the formula or read-aloud or a selection-aware presentation_. I would like to agree with that but this implies that some boxes will bother the mathematical discourse. I believe that similar issues are met in other environments (in particular TeXmacs has very deep box-nesting. - Should users expect “box manipulations” so that the boxes become correct? - Should they be told to care? - Are there situations where boxes would overlap? paul

## Attachments

- image/png attachment: Screenshot_2021-07-09_at_17.11.54.png

- image/png attachment: Screenshot_2021-07-09_at_17.19.47.png

Received on Friday, 9 July 2021 15:27:03 UTC