From: Murray Sargent (murrays@exchange.microsoft.com)
Date: Mon Nov 13 2006 - 14:22:24 CST
Hans Aberg wrote:<unk<unk> For example, if one wants to have superscripts to the left, one has<unk> to write ${}^ba$, which is semantically incorrect, as then the $b$<unk> will be a superscript of nothing, and further, if say the<unk> typographical position of $b$ should be adjusted relative to what it<unk> superscripts, this cannot be done.<unk<unkActually one can define prescripts by the notation<unk<unk_<presub>^<presup> <base><unk<unkwhere nothing precedes the prescripts, but a legitimate base does follow. With the linear format (Unicode Technical Note #28), "nothing" can be ensured by preceding the prescript(s) with an ASCII space, although this prescript notation isn't in the current TN28 paper. This approach is similar to TeX's _1F_1 with no leading {}. On p. 129 of The TeXbook, Knuth does recommend putting a {} before prescripts. But the problem with this approach is, as Hans notes above, that it implies a null postscript base, whereas semantically and typographically one wants the base to be what fo
llows the prescripts. With Word 2007 it's particularly important that the correct base is used, since that enables automatic cut-in kerning to take place between the scripts and their base. Once the notation is built up, the prescripts are associated with the correct base. Subsequent output in MathML or OMML has the correct semantics.<unk<unkMurray<unk<unk<unk<unk<unk<unk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 13 2006 - 14:24:05 CST