MathML is not appropriate here. This should be a regular <table> and you
can see here for chemical formulas:
https://standardebooks.org/manual/1.8.6/single-page#8.12
On 1/23/26 7:43 PM, 'mauka218lani' via Standard Ebooks wrote:
> Greetings,
> Seeking advice on balancing priorities. I'm unable to match the scan
> when using mathml, specifically the line marking a total.
>
> Here is the scan:
> chemscan.png
>
> Here is how my current version using mathml renders:
> chemtor.png
>
> So close! Had to use mtable to get alignment of text, equal signs,
> numbers. But mathml does not have fine control of lines between table rows.
>
> Please advise. Thanks
> PS, Project Gutenberg marked up these formulas as tables.
>
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2026 at 1:34:13 PM UTC-10
weij...@bu.edu wrote:
>
> If you think that it is intended to be read as a French phrase (even
> if it isn't actual French) then you can mark it as xml:lang="fr"
>
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2026 at 4:23:51 PM UTC-5 mauka218lani wrote:
>
> Thank you.
>
> I am puzzled how to mark what may be french slang or may be a
> joke. As seen in scan excerpt below, character says "nom-de-kid"
> to imply a pseudonym. Perhaps this is like "nom-de-net" for an
> internet handle?
>
> notfrench.png
>
> Project Gutenberg has marked this: <i lang="fr">nom-de-kid</i>
>
> What do you recommend? Thanks
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 18, 2026 at 3:45:56 PM UTC-10
weij...@bu.edu
> wrote:
>
> <em><abbr>gr.</abbr></em> is correct.
>
> On Sunday, January 18, 2026 at 6:03:58 PM UTC-5 mauka218lani
> wrote:
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sorry to bother you with this, but I can't seem to find
> guidance for an italicized abbreviation. The difference
> in these two abbreviations is a clue to the case, which
> is probably why the author has them in italics. Below is
> the scan:
>
> emabbr.png
>
> I assume the markup for this would involve some
> combination of abbr and either i or em.
> Something like any of these?
> <abbr><em>gr.</em></abbr>
> <abbr><i>gr.</i></abbr>
> <em><abbr>gr.</abbr></em>
>
> Please advise which to use in what order, or if there is
> another approach that's more appropriate. Thank you for
> your time.
>
>
> On Friday, January 16, 2026 at 4:10:00 PM UTC-10
>
weij...@bu.edu wrote:
>
> That seems like it could be a printer's typo given
> the context. You can change it to a quotation mark
> in an editorial commit.
>
> On Friday, January 16, 2026 at 9:00:52 PM UTC-5
> mauka218lani wrote:
>
> Thank you.
>
> Below is excerpt from the scans, and Project
> Gutenberg has the same punctuation. Should the
> exclamation poiont be changed to question mark?
>
> point.png
>
>
> On Thursday, January 15, 2026 at 3:09:54 PM
> UTC-10
weij...@bu.edu wrote:
>
> Well, that is why you also need to manually
> add some semantics. Semanticate can't catch
> every possible abbreviation. It only covers
> the most common ones.
>
> On Thursday, January 15, 2026 at 7:39:36 PM
> UTC-5 mauka218lani wrote:
>
> Thank you.
> In this excerpt from the scan, the
> speaker is paraphasing Swift:
>
> md.png
>
> Se semanticate has marked tas follows:
> ‘Night, dear <abbr
> epub:type="z3998:initialism z3998:name-
> title">M.D.</abbr> Love Pdfr.’
>
> Seems odd to mark one abbr and not the
> other. What do you recommend?
> Thanks
>
>
> On Thursday, January 15, 2026 at
> 2:23:00 PM UTC-10
weij...@bu.edu wrote:
>
> Leave it unsemanticated. "X" is
> functioning as a name here. See
>
https://standardebooks.org/
> manual/1.8.5/8-typography#8.2.8.3
> <
https://standardebooks.org/
> manual/1.8.5/8-typography#8.2.8.3>
>
> On Thursday, January 15, 2026 at
> 7:00:39 PM UTC-5 mauka218lani wrote:
>
> Thank you.
>
> I plan to treat the X in the
> scan exerpt below as grapheme.
> It is not correct that se
> semanticate tagged the X as
> roman numeral. Please let me
> know if grapheme is not correct.
>
> personX.png
>
> On Thursday, January 15, 2026 at
> 12:36:18 PM UTC-10 Vince wrote:
>
> It’s 8.05. That’s a
> Britishism; they decided
> they could drop the leading
> zeroes on time just like we
> do on regular numbers. I see
> it quite often, all the way
> through at least mid-20th
> century (Churchill uses that
> shorthand in his WWII
> history, e.g.).
>
>> On Jan 15, 2026, at
>> 3:23 PM, 'Weijia Cheng'
>> via Standard Ebooks
>> <
standar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> …
>>
>> 3. For the 8.5 a.m., I
>> would have guessed that
>> should be read as 8:50? Is
>> there something in the
>> context that suggests one
>> way or another?
>
> standardebooks/18208e06-095b-42ce-8728-38834c0ed5bcn%
40googlegroups.com
> <
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> standardebooks/18208e06-095b-42ce-8728-38834c0ed5bcn%
40googlegroups.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.