RE: Formula alignment

Thank you very much David for the response and very fast in answering.  As
always you do!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: David Carlisle [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: viernes, 18 de diciembre de 2015 18:21
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Formula alignment

On 18/12/2015 16:56, Daniel Marques wrote:
> Dear MathML group,
>
> I=E2=80=99m just wandering how to align formulas given a symbol. For exam=
ple,
>
> __y=3Dx+1
>
> x+1=3Dy
>
> (where the _ are spaces)
>
> Reading the MathML specification, I came up with
>
> <mtable>
>
>    <mtd>
>
>      <mi>y</mi>
>
>      <malignmark/>
>
>      <mo> =3D </mo>
>
>     <mi>x</mi>
>
>      <mo>+</mo>
>
>      <mn>1</mn>
>
>    </mtd>
>
>   <mtd>
>
>      <mi>x</mi>
>
>      <mo>+</mo>
>
>      <mn>1</mn>
>
>      <malignmark/>
>
>      <mo> =3D </mo>
>
>      <mi>y</mi>
>
>    </mtd>
>
> </mtable>
>
> Do you think that this is the best way to express that?

Apart from a missing mtr (was optional in mathml 1 but not since) yes
but.....


malignmark is one of the trickier areas of mathml and not supported in all
mathml renderers so if you are targetting a specific system and it works
then fine, otherwise I'd split it as two columns right aligned for the left
hand side and left aligned for the rest. Of course that suffers from the
problem that malignmark was trying to address of breaking up the expression
structure.


>
> Another question is whether the malignmark must appear always inside a
> table (mtable)
as specified yes.

  or can be used also combined with <mspace
> linebreak=3D"newline"/>. For example, is the following a valid alternativ=
e?
>
>    <mrow>
>
>      <mi>y</mi>
>
>      <malignmark/>
>
>      <mo> =3D </mo>
>
>     <mi>x</mi>
>
>      <mo>+</mo>
>
>      <mn>1</mn>
>
>      <mspace linebreak=3D"newline"/>
>
>      <mi>x</mi>
>
>      <mo>+</mo>
>
>      <mn>1</mn>
>
>      <malignmark/>
>
>      <mo> =3D </mo>
>
>      <mi>y</mi>
>
>    </mrow>
>
> Dani
>

I was going to show that that was invalid but it turns out that it is
invalid according to the prose but the constraint that malignmark only
appears in tables isn't checked by the schema. (In principle it could do bu=
t
it would greatly complicate the relax schema as you'd have to carry the fac=
t
that you were inside a table through arbitrary pattern rules.  I suppose th=
e
XSD schema could have had an xpath assertion saying explicitly that all
malignmark are within a table.


David

________________________________


The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and
Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:

Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.



This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Microsoft Office 365.

________________________________