Output difference between Ver.2 and Ver.3

[tsubolabo]

Hello,

I feel some problems with Ver.3.

Attached two files show them.

One is for Ver.2.7.5, another is for Ver.3.

I hope the output of V3 will be improved, to be the same as V2's one.

1. 20 of marks aren't displayed properly.

2. \struct doesn't work properly.

3. \sqrt with \smash[t] and \smash doesn't work properly.

4. \partial and 2 are too close.

5. The arrow is a little out of place.

6. Line interval is too wide.

7. The vertical position of the right half is too high.

8. The vertical position of inner contents of matrix is too high.

[Davide Cervone]

1. 20 of marks aren't displayed properly.

The font data was not properly set for these characters.  That is fixed in this pull request (for v3.0.1):

https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax-src/pull/395

2. \struct doesn't work properly.

This is due to a difference in how the "pt" unit is handled in version 3, which is inconsistent with v2.  I have filed an issue for it at

https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues/2285

3. \sqrt with \smash[t] and \smash doesn't work properly.

Actually, it is the version 2 output that is incorrect.  This is the version 3 output:

and this is actual TeX output:

There is also a pull request that slightly adjusts the positioning of square roots that will improve this match.

4. \partial and 2 are too close.

The italic correction data for the \partial is missing in the font files (and perhaps that is true of other characters as well).  I have files an issue for it:

https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues/2286

5. The arrow is a little out of place.

I am not sure what you are seeing.  Here is the v3 and v2 output:

6. Line interval is too wide.

Again, I'm not sure what you are seeing.  Here are the v3 and v2 output:

There is a very slight difference; is that what you are concerned about?

7. The vertical position of the right half is too high.

8. The vertical position of inner contents of matrix is too high.

These two are fixed (in 3.0.1) by the pull request

https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax-src/pull/352

Thanks for reporting the issues you have found.  

Davide

[katsutak...@nifty.com]

I appreciate your swift reply.

About item 1,2,3,4,7 and 8, I understand.

About item 5 :

Fig. MathJax_2vs3_01.jpg is the hardcopy from my computer.

(Upper layer: Ver.2 / Lower layer: Ver.3)

The difference is very small as you wrote.

But I prefer the arrow slightly moved to the right. 

Furthermore, small difference of level on the center of arrow would be removed.

About item 6 :

Fig. MathJax_2vs3_02.jpg is same as above.

(Upper layer: Ver.3 / Lower layer: Ver.2)

The difference of line height is large than your hardcopy.

Particularly, the bottom margin of the formula is larger.

For your reference, my computer is windows 10 machine.

Any browser (Chrome, Firefox, Edge) brings the same result.

[Davide Cervone]

For 6, try adding

mjx-container {

  line-height: 0;

}

to your CSS and see if that helps.

Davide

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MathJax Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mathjax-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mathjax-users/6a0cc366-2c04-4e55-94df-e00d6c01b975%40googlegroups.com.
<MathJax_2vs3_02.jpg><MathJax_2vs3_01.jpg>

[tsubolabo]

Thank you, Davide

Problem No.6 was resolved also in my computer by adding CSS which you showed.

Attached image shows the results of [V2], [V3 without CSS], and [V3 with CSS] from left to right.

[katsutak...@nifty.com]

In MathJax version 3.0.1, all my requests are improved except for item 5. Thank you.

(Item 3 was already withdrawn.)

[Davide Cervone]

> In MathJax version 3.0.1, all my requests are improved except for item 5. Thank you.
> (Item 3 was already withdrawn.)

Thanks for the confirmation. Your item 5 will take additional work, as it requires information about the glyphs being used that is not currently available in v3, and so will require more extensive changes to implement. We will consider that when we work on the font support this summer.

Davide