You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The group has clarified that the percentage minsize/maxsize value is relative to the "normal stretched size" of a stretchy <mo>, which is contextual to the size of its parent.
For cases where latexml tries to size w.r.t to the normal font size of a glyph (e.g. \small), we should consider switching away from percentage values such as 90% and closer to relative unit values, such as 0.9em.
We would still benefit from tests and interop in browsers, since the 0.9em values may still have lingering rendering issues.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Follow-up to w3c/mathml-core#103
The group has clarified that the percentage minsize/maxsize value is relative to the "normal stretched size" of a stretchy
<mo>
, which is contextual to the size of its parent.For cases where latexml tries to size w.r.t to the normal font size of a glyph (e.g.
\small
), we should consider switching away from percentage values such as90%
and closer to relative unit values, such as0.9em
.We would still benefit from tests and interop in browsers, since the
0.9em
values may still have lingering rendering issues.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: