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 <hamm...@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 > >