Michal Hoftich <puszcza-hack...@gnu.org.ua> writes: > . . . > Details: > > As was pointed out by David Carlisle, there are spurious `<mi>` elements in > the output of $\mathit{hello }\mathbf{world}$ when converted to mathml: > <math > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" > display="inline" ><mstyle mathvariant="italic"><mi >>h</mi><mi >>e</mi><mi >>l</mi><mi >>l</mi><mi >>o</mi></mstyle>... > > it should be > > <mstyle mathvariant="italic">hello</mstyle>
No. Loose character data is not allowed in <mstyle>. The LaTeX markup $\mathit{hello}$ is insufficient for knowing whether or not "hello" is intended to be the name of a mathematical symbol. That is, assuming amsmath, I would like to see something in the LaTeX source like \mathit{\text{hello}} or \mathit{\operatorname{hello}}. If "hello" is intended to be a symbol name, then <mi mathvariant="italic">hello</mi>, but if it's not a symbol name, then one probably should use <mtext mathvariant="italic">hello</mtext> for (minimal) commenting inside math. There are various inconsistencies afloat. For example, with the LaTeX markup $\mathbf{\operatorname{Hom}(X,Y)}$ should "Hom", which should be upright, be bold or not? There is a division on this between tex4ht and latexml and *also* a division between pdflatex and xelatex (with fontspec and unicode-math). \operatorname is a command taking symbol names, while \mathbf is a command taking expressions. My thought is that it should be bold, i.e., I would vote for tex4ht and xelatex+unicode-math. That said, just as I am not fond of seeing <mstyle> in MathML, I would prefer to see the use of things like \mathrm, \mathbf, and \mathit exercised symbol by symbol. -- Bill