Skip to content

Define that (and how) glyph assemblies are mirrored in rtl formulas #235

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
bert-github opened this issue Apr 9, 2024 · 3 comments
Open
Labels

Comments

@bert-github
Copy link
Contributor

(This is part of the I18n WG review.)

B.4 Unicode-based Glyph Assemblies
https://www.w3.org/TR/mathml-core/#unicode-based-glyph-assemblies

Maybe this section should say explicitly that the glyph assemblies are mirrored in right-to-left formulas. Firefox and Safari mirror them already, Chromium doesn't (but maybe that's an implementation bug).

Unicode defines for some symbols what their mirrored versions are, but it doesn't do so for these ‘extension’ characters. So maybe the MathML Core spec itself should list the mirrored glyphs. It could add them as an extra column in the table.

(The Unicode Technical Committee is still looking into whether to define some of these extension symbols as mirrored in a future version of Unicode, based on a larger proposal from 2022 (‘Glyph mirroring: ExtraMirroring.txt’).)

@bert-github bert-github added the i18n-needs-resolution Issue the Internationalization Group has raised and looks for a response on. label Apr 9, 2024
@fred-wang
Copy link
Contributor

This section not implemented in Chromium (it is non-normative and is only a fallback mechanism for a few operators).

The general mechanism would be to do something like #67 (comment) which is what Firefox implements. However, that was discarded from MathML Core level 1 and from the initial Chromium release.

@bkardell
Copy link
Collaborator

From the meeting today: This is a great point and we recognize the importance here, and even have some ideas about how it would move forward, but as @fred-wang noted this was specifically moved to level 2 in order to focus efforts and iterate. We will take this up in level 2.

@bert-github
Copy link
Contributor Author

OK, the i18n WG is looking forward to level 2.

@bert-github bert-github removed the i18n-needs-resolution Issue the Internationalization Group has raised and looks for a response on. label Dec 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants