[tex4ht] Backing up Re: [bug #226] Spurious elements in mathml output ...

[Michal Hoftich]

HomHi William,

I forwarder this conversation to David and he confirmed that `<mi
mathvariant="...">` should be used,
not `<mathstyle>` as I said earlier.

2014-08-03 3:07 GMT+02:00 William F Hammond <hammond at csc.albany.edu>:
> After checking The LaTeX Companion, 2nd edition,
> I should take back part of what I said in my last message:
>
>> The LaTeX markup $\mathit{hello}$ is insufficient for
>> knowing whether or not "hello" is intended to
>> be the name of a mathematical symbol.
>
> The LaTeX Companion seems to say that with this markup
> "hello" is a symbol.  So then
> <mi mathvariant="italic">hello</mi>.
>

David is on vacation, but promised to take a look at this issue later.
In my opinion, it would be hard to support such markup
in tex4ht, because it would generate something like `<mi
mathvariant="bold"><mo>Hom</mo>(X,Y)</mi>`, which is invalid mathml.
Some TeX wizardy would be needed to put `<mi>` elements only around
actual text and not around child math, like in the `\operatorname`.


>> For example, with the LaTeX markup
>> $\mathbf{\operatorname{Hom}(X,Y)}$ should "Hom", which
>> should be upright, be bold or not?
>
> The LaTeX Companion describes \mathrm, \mathbf, and \mathit
> as commands that operate on the alphabet, maybe just the
> Latin alphabet.  So now it's unclear to me whether \mathbf,
> etc. should be allowed on \operatorname even when the content
> inside \operatorname is alphabetic.
>
> (Is the LaTeX rule still that it's allowed if it works?)
>
> Sorry for the previous confusion.
>
> (A formalized definition of LaTeX would help.)
>

Best regards,
Michal

>                                     -- Bill
>
>