Closed NSoiffer closed 2 years ago
As you say, trying to decide whether {GL}_2
should be separate mi
elements for G and L or a single one containing both is not easy. Note, however, that your example \rm{GL}_2
is not correct (or at least not what I think you intend), as \rm
doesn't take an argument; it is a switch that turns the font to roman from then on (so in your example, it applies to the 2 as well as anything else that follows, and the braces are redundant). You may have meant {\rm GL}_2
, but I don't consider this to be semantic as the \rm
is changing the font style, not providing a meaning.
Did you mean \mathrm{GL}_2
instead? As it turns out, MathJax does code \mathrm{GL}_2
using a single mi
for both letters. This was the result of a discussion in issue #2595 where \mathbf
, \mathrm
, and similar macros are handled specially so that letter groups in their arguments are combined into a single mi
, as will occur in your example. Personally, I still don't consider the use of \mathrm
, etc., to be semantic, but apparently some do.
There is also \operatorname{GL}_2
that actually is semantic, and does produce a single mi
, when possible. Finally, \mathop{\rm GL}\nolimits_2
also produces a single mi
(as a special case), since this also suggests a semantic interpretation.
The \mathrm
handling is new in v3.1, but the \operatorname
and \mathop
treatment is also in v2.
I thought I had replied earlier, but apparently I never clicked on the "comment" button.
At this point, I just want to record a "thank you" for your reply. Indeed I should have/meant to use mathrm{GL}_2
and perhaps should have used \operatorname
(which I wasn't familiar with).
I agree that closing this issue is appropriate.
Issue Summary
I suspect that there is nothing that can be done, but I felt I should mention this because it does have accessibility implications.
If an author groups the base of a subscript (and likely superscript), the translation from TeX fails to group the base into a single
mi
in a case like{GL}_2
. I doubt many TeX authors would even try to indicate that the base is "GL", but if the author makes an effort to provide some "semantics", the translator should respect that. I also tried \rm{GL}_2" -- it doesn't do any better.The ClearSpeak translation ends up "G of L sub 2" instead of "GL sub 2"
The Nemeth code uses two capitalization indicators (one before the G and one before the L) instead of a leading double capitalization indicator.
FYI: this came from sre-tests/output/nemeth/AataNemeth.html # 246 where the output is wrong (should use double capitalizaiton indicator as it does with # 241).
Technical details: