MathML <mtable>s sometimes have incorrect scriptlevel

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

()

Core
MathML
RESOLVED FIXED
13 years ago
4 years ago

People

(Reporter: David Harvey, Assigned: rbs)

Tracking

Trunk
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

13 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/417.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/417.8
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Firefox/1.5.0.1

In some situations <mtable> elements have the wrong scriptlevel. Typical example:

    <munder>
        <mi>x</mi>
        <mtable>
            <mtr>
                <mtd>
                    <mi>y</mi>
                </mtd>
            </mtr>
        </mtable>
    </munder>

In this case the "y" should appear smaller than the "x", but Firefox draws them the same size. According to my reading of the MathMl 2.0 spec, the <mtable> should have scriptlevel equal to the default for the second argument to <munder>, which should be one more than the scriptlevel of "x".

This kind of construct is useful for things like AMS-LaTeX's \substack. Of course it's possible to get around this by using an extra <mstyle>, but it shouldn't be necessary.


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. View a page with the above MathML.

Actual Results:  
The "x" and "y" are the same size.

Expected Results:  
The "y" should be smaller than the "x".
Assignee: nobody → rbs
Component: General → MathML
Product: Firefox → Core
QA Contact: general → ian
Version: unspecified → 1.8 Branch
(Assignee)

Comment 1

12 years ago
Confirming. I understand what is going. It comes from the fact that <mtable> has some wrapper frames. The fix will be a one-liner.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Version: 1.8 Branch → Trunk
(Assignee)

Comment 2

12 years ago
Created attachment 235803 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
Attachment #235803 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #235803 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #235803 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #235803 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #235803 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #235803 - Flags: review+
(Assignee)

Comment 3

12 years ago
Checked in.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.