Interpretation of DisplayOperatorMinHeight

Just converting comment from the appendix

It is not clear how the DisplayOperatorMinHeight is supposed to be used or whether it is really reliable. More specifically, integral symbols (e.g. INTEGRAL U+222B) are typically taller than N-ary operators (e.g. N-ARY SUMMATION U+2211) so a unique minimal height may not always be enough to determine the display size. Suppose for example that the sum has three size variants: the base size of height 1em, the display size of height 2em and a bigger variant of height 3em. Suppose that the integral has three sizes: a base size of height 1em, a larger size variant of height 2em and a display size of height 3em. If DisplayOperatorMinHeight is less than 3em then it does not force the display size of the integral to be selected. If it is more than 3em then none of the available sizes satisfies the condition. How to interpret that? Should we pick the largest as a fallback? If it is 3em, the desired size will be selected for the integral in display size but the one selected for the sum in display size will be too large. A heuristic is proposed in section 3.2.3 to workaround limitations of DisplayOperatorMinHeight.

Start by reading the appendix comment about DisplayOperatorMinHeight and the heuristic proposed in section 3.2.3. Review the existing discussion to determine whether the specification needs a clarified interpretation or fallback behavior, and consider the issue resolved when the expected handling is explicitly agreed and documented.