- From: Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:26:47 -0700
- To: public-mathml4@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAESRWkB-i1EBLgXu8td0RBoZUZHoyDSdV+OoTvMu99LytZD4vw@mail.gmail.com>

Attendees: Neil Soiffer David Carlisle David Farmer Bruce Miller Patrick Ion Louis Maher Deyan Ginev Murray Sargent Sam Dooley Steve Noble No one took notes today, so here is a summary based on my recollection... We started with a discussion of the idea comparison <https://mathml-refresh.github.io/mathml/docs/comparison> document. The two approaches are similar in many ways. They both have a “semantic” attribute of the form “function(args)”. When there is no operator (e.g, a power via msup), they are basically the same: semantic="power(#base,#exp)" However, the details differ when an operator exists. A third approach using positioning was also proposed. It is much easier to write in most cases and involves much less markup, but is “fragile” to document changes and was not discussed. In the first approach, the function name points off to the operator and only the operands are arguments to the function: <mrow semantic="#op(#arg)"> <mi arg="arg">a</mi> <mo arg="op" semantic="factorial">!</mo> </mrow> In the second approach, the function name is explicitly given and both the operator and operands are the function’s arguments: <mrow semantic="factorial(@arg, @op)"> <mi arg="arg">a</mi> <mo arg="op" semantic="factorial">!</mo> </mrow> Much of the rest of discussion focused on those difference and these examples: 1. a+b-c+d 2. 2nd derivative: \frac{d^2f}{dx^2} 3. Integral: \int\frac{dr}{r} The interesting thing about the later two examples is that the ‘f’ and ‘dr’ can be after the fraction and the first proposal has the same value for ‘semantic’ both cases. That’s what is desired for conversion to content MathML or computation, but is really bad for speech. A similar thing happens for the first example which computation would write as plus(a,b,minus(c), d). The exact same semantic would be used for “a+b+-c+d”: <mrow semantic="#op1(#arg1,#arg2,#op2(#arg3),#arg4)"> <mi arg="arg1">a</mi> <mo arg="op1" semantic="plus">+</mo> <mi arg="arg2">b</mi> <mo arg="op2" semantic="minus">-</mo> <mi arg="arg3">c</mi> <mo>+</mo> <mi arg="arg4">d</mi> </mrow> This led to a discussion as to the purpose “semantics” and the agreement that there are different masters that want to be served by it. Neil suggested that redundant information might need to be present in the value of ‘semantic’ so that both masters will be happy. Some worried about having redundant information, but time ran out. We ended up agreeing that experimentation was needed with these three cases and the two proposals. - Neil agreed to write code that converts the two proposals for these and turn them into speech. - Sam agreed to do the same with Content MathML - David C agreed to write a Content-to-Presentation MathML converter to target both proposals. - Not sure if David F/Bruce/Deyan agreed to do the same with PreTeX/LaTeXML -> presentation MathML I think we should also start with the hopefully easy factorial example, so there are four total examples. In the comparison doc, I still need to provide a proposed markup and I think Brce/Deyan need to add some more markup for the children of the semantic, but I’ll leave it to them to decide that. We will meet next week and talk about whatever results people have.

Received on Friday, 3 July 2020 20:27:15 UTC