On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:08:54 +0700, White Lynx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

* correct continuation of long fractions on the next line

Never seen something similar. We just prohibiting line breaks in fractions.

TeX avoids them, too, but sometimes a complex fraction is simply longer than the line. There are typesetting rules on conitnuation of fractions.

Continuation rules also apply to breaking other formulae over lines. Some typographical traditions (depend on the surrounding language, I guess) require that the formula is broken only on an operator, and that the operator is repeated (once in the end of a line, and once more in the beginning of the next line).

* stacking of multiple signs like tildes, arrows etc above variables

Unicode allows several combining diacritical marks per base character.
But browser support for combining diacritics is not perfect.

They need to stack over each other, not overlay each other.

* stretching of tildes etc over complex expressions

It's an open issue. Can't promise anything. Possible solution could be SVG inserted from style sheet using CSS generated content.

Can SVG content be generated?

* matrices with cells of uniform size (as to accomodate for the largest
expression found)

Not possible within CSS2.1 tables model, unless widths are specified explicitly. So the burden of making cells uniform lays on author.

Is it possible in CSS3?

* nice embedding of inline formulae in paragraphs of text (without
unnecessarily increasing line spacing)

It is not a problem, unless formula actually requires more space.

Here is what should happen:

text text text
text x^2 text
text text text

Here the superscript should not increase line spacing. But if there was some more complex expession, TeX would add some extra spacing above (or below, if needed) that line. TeX has a configurable threshold of how far can an inline formula ascend and descend from a line without having to increase the line spacing.


--
Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com

Reply via email to