Re: TAG review of MathML-Core

Given only positive feedback and a few text edits, I've gone ahead and
filed https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/438

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:26 PM Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Neil, good catch -- we moved this briefly to another medium in
> order to co-edit and it seems a bunch of formatting was messed up in the
> translation - I thought I had gotten them all but... good eyes :)
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:02 PM Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Looks good with a minor formatting typos noted below
>>
>> Tests: + core
>>> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/mathml> +
>>> Proposed exposed CSS properties (not necessary to expose to authors
>>> initially, but we think good to) * math-script-level and math-style
>>> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/css/css-fonts/math-script-level-and-math-style>
>>> * text-transform values
>>> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/css/text-transform/math>
>>>
>>
>> *What data does this specification expose to an origin? Please also
>>> document what data is identical to data exposed by other features, in the
>>> same or different contexts.* * Nothing
>>>
>>
>> The "* xxx"s should be on a separate line, shouldn't they?
>>
>>     Neil
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:50 AM Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As part of the process, we will need to send a request for a W3C TAG
>>> review of MathML-Core very soon.  Fred, Rob and I put together a draft of
>>> this that you can see at
>>> https://gist.github.com/bkardell/46ed26841c5a730a5eb878eb3f96f1ad
>>>
>>> It would be great if people could look, comment about edits you think
>>> should happen, and say whether you'd like to be listed as a primary contact
>>> or @ mention replies (you can also just watch it once it posts).  We've
>>> kept it currently to just the people involved in the initial writing.
>>>
>>> We'd like to get this filed ASAP because we need to try to get on the
>>> agenda for December's F2F meeting and that will be pretty hard if we don't
>>> file it soon.  Do we think this is a thing we can resolve async? Should we
>>> set up a special 1-off meeting?  Or do we wait until next week?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com
>


-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com