Re: Shortref [was: Re: Super and Subscripts]

Christian Mogensen (mogens@CS.Stanford.EDU)
Mon, 23 Jan 95 13:06:10 EST

From: "Dave Raggett" <>
>The code in the browser to support the shortrefs and their corresponding tags
>is trivial. The ease of use issue is much simpler for math than for normal
>text entry. You first need to explain to users that { stands for <box> and
>} for </box>, not an exactly tricky idea to get across. The _ and ^ shortrefs
>are also simple to explain. The only complication comes when you want to
>explain how to superscript a superscript. This is rare in practice, though.

"Make simple things easy to do, and make the complex cases possible"

Shortrefs should be useful for simple examples
(I think this is right - I only know what has pased by on this list)
<math> e = c^2^m </math>
<math> e = c<sup>2</sup>m </math>

For double superscripts 3
x = c m

<math> x = c^2^3^^m </math> - this does not work (apparently)
<math> x = c^2<sup>3</sup>^m </math> - but will this?

i.e. can one mix shortrefs and normal markup? That should satisfy
both camps. Basically, I think shortrefs have their place, but
for those n-dimensional teapot-topological expressions there is always
the normal markup to fall back on.

Shortrefs don't have to do everything.