RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Thoughts on mrow default intent

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farmer <farmer@aimath.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 2:50 PM
To: public-mathml4@w3.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Thoughts on mrow default intent


> 3. I would even suggest stepping away from the desire to have "content 
> trees" in the default rules for anything that isn't trivial or 
> extremely constrained. Neil's examples 1,2,3,6,7 above can be narrated 
> without any additional annotations, and without defaults, just reading through the presentation tree as usual. So why do anything at all for them?

Some of us (me!)  [ "me with emphasis" not "me factorial" ] primarily care about enabling correct pronunciation by a screen reader.  But others (perhaps the majority in this group but perhaps not in the general population) want to enable computation.  We have already seen that those goals are not completely aligned.  An example from a recent call is:

\int dx/x

and

\int 1/x dx

were said to have the same "intent", while I doubt authors intend those to be pronounced the same.

I recognize the value of enabling statements to be read into a computer for computation, even though that is not my use case.
But I don't want the computational use of "intent" to lead to incorrect pronunciation.

Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2020 23:10:03 UTC