[whatwg] Physical quantities: <var> or <i>?
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Jul 25 12:02:15 PDT 2011
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Looking at the nice summary (with examples) of text-level markup at
> I started wondering why there is no example of markup for symbols of
> physical quantities. The descriptions of individual elements or their
> examples don't seem to say anything about this either.
The main reason is that most of these symbols have Unicode characters and
don't need special markup.
> So what markup should we use for E = mc², given that by the applicable
> standards, E, M, and c should appear in italics and the other characters as
> normal (upright)?
It sounds like you want to use these characters:
U+1D438 MATHEMATICAL ITALIC CAPITAL E
U+1D45A MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL M
U+1D450 MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL C
Alternatively, you can use MathML to mark up the equation.
> Physical quantities surely satisfy the requirement that "typical
> typographic presentation is italicized" in the following, and they are
> to be offset from the normal prose, but why aren't they mentioned in the
> fairly long list of examples then:
> "The i element represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood,
> or otherwise offset from the normal prose, such as a taxonomic
> designation, a technical term, an idiomatic phrase from another
> language, a thought, a ship name in Western texts, or some other prose
> whose typical typographic presentation is italicized."
> (As an aside, the wording "a taxonomic designation" is too broad, as by
> biological nomenclature rules, genus and species names are to be
> italiced but higher taxons, e.g. family names, like Canidae, must not.
> Besides, e.g. an English name of a species is taxonomic too... So
> "scientific names of organisms" would be a better formulation.)
Whether you want something in italics or not is more a matter for CSS than
a matter for HTML.
> Should we consider the var element as covering physical quantities too?
> After all, they can be regarded as variables in a broad sense, as
> symbols that denote different values in different situations. However,
> <var>c</var> would be odd, wouldn't it, since the symbol denotes a
> universal constant of nature.
You can look at it as being a variable whose value is a constant of
nature. I've clarified the spec to indicate that this is fine.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> Well, a constant isn't really variable any more, is it? I thought <var>
> was meant to mark up text that couldn't simply be 'copypasted' without
> filling in the unknowns (free variables). Defined variables (whether in
> source code or formulae) do not conform to that definition.
> So, <code>rm -r <var>$path</var></code> would conform (as a reply to the
> question "how does one remove a (potentially non-empty) directory on
> *nix?") as $path is undefined, but <code><var>i</var>++</code> would
> not, as i isn't ment to be substituted.
What do you base this interpretation on?
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Besides, there is no implied uniform rendering for variables in the
> current broad meaning for <var>. In mathematics, variables are
> conventionally written in italics. But the HTML(5) notion of variable is
> wider: "The var element represents a variable. This could be an actual
> variable in a mathematical expression or programming context, or it
> could just be a term used as a placeholder in prose." A programming
> language variable is something that is _not_ conventionally rendered in
> italics. Rather, they are usually (though for no really good reason)
> rendered in a monospace font, like any other expressions in computer
Indeed. And vectors are usually bold. This is the kind of thing I would
expect to see handled using classes, e.g.:
<var class=vector>a</var> ⨯ <var class=vector>b</var> =
<var>a</var> <var>b</var> sin <var>θ</var> <var class=vector>n</var>
> Too bad there's no example of <var> used in programming context. The
> current wording suggests that it would be normal, when discussing
> programming, to write, say, "Then we define the variable
> <var>myFoo</var> of type <code>fooType</code> with initial value
> <code>"Foo"</code> - -", which really makes no sense, even if we use
> both <var> and <code> for myFoo.
Why does it make no sense?
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg