Minutes: MathML Core meeting, 20 July, 2020

*Attendees: - David Carlisle- Neil Soiffer- Brian Kardell- Murray Sargent-
Bruce Miller- Patrick IonRegrets: - Louis MaherAgenda:
meeting was recorded:
u#@bt1Gy Updates:MS: I’ve been working on export changes to target for
Office to support mrow versions of mfenced. Issue #94
<https://github.com/mathml-refresh/mathml/issues/94> Improve rules for href
hyperlinks and focusable elements?NS: the open part of this is what do SVG
and HTML specs say.BK: Probably more important to know what implementations
do. We know that for HTML, they do different things.BK: Here’s the link for
SVG: https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/styling.html#UAStyleSheet
<https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/styling.html#UAStyleSheet>BM: why are we
worrying about this when we don’t have links in Level 1.BK: there are some
pseudo states like focusable so we should say something, but don’t need to
specify style info. We should make sure things like outline
works.Consensus: we don’t need to do anything for level one in a UA
stylesheet.href (#125
<https://github.com/mathml-refresh/mathml/issues/125>) [TAG feedback?]BK:
probably won’t get more feedback. We’ve spoken to implementers and know
what plans are without additional funding.The practical realities are that
we aren’t going to have links in Chromium by the end of the year. They will
continue to work as is in Firefox and Safari, but not work at all in
Chrome/Edge.NS: should we write some polyfills?BK: I think so. We can make
them respect target, etc. I even posted pen at one point. I’ll write
something and put it in the polyfill dir.MathML WG charter itemsNS: It’s
time to move to a WG. Step 1 is writing a charter. Actually there is a step
0 of notifying the W3C that we intend to do this. I’ve already done this
and got positive feedback.From
<https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#WGCharter>:A Working Group or
Interest Group charter must include all of the following information. - The
group's mission (e.g., develop a technology or process, review the work of
other groups);- The scope of the group's work and criteria for success;-
The duration of the group (typically from six months to two years);- The
nature of any deliverables (technical reports, reviews of the deliverables
of other groups, or software);- Expected milestone dates where available.
Note: A charter is not required to include schedules for review of other
group's deliverables;- The process for the group to approve the release of
deliverables (including intermediate results);- Any dependencies by groups
within or outside of W3C on the deliverables of this group. For any
dependencies, the charter must specify the mechanisms for communication
about the deliverables;- Any dependencies of this group on other groups
within or outside of W3C. Such dependencies include interactions with W3C
Horizontal Groups
<https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html#horizontal-review>;- The
level of confidentiality
<https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#confidentiality-levels> of the
group's proceedings and deliverables;- Meeting mechanisms and expected
frequency;- If known, the date of the first face-to-face meeting
<https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#ftf-meeting>. The date of the
first face-to-face meeting of a proposed group must not be sooner than
eight weeks after the date of the proposal.- Communication mechanisms to be
employed within the group, between the group and the rest of W3C, and with
the general public;- Any voting procedures or requirements other than those
specified in Section 3.4
<https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#Votes>;- An estimate of the
expected time commitment from participants;- The expected time commitment
and level of involvement by the Team (e.g., to track developments, write
and edit technical reports, develop code, or organize pilot experiments).-
Intellectual property information. What are the intellectual property
(including patents and copyright) considerations affecting the success of
the Group? In particular, is there any reason to believe that it will be
difficult to meet the Royalty-Free licensing goals of section 2 of the W3C
Patent Policy <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy>?NS: what format
do we want to use to get a draft going.[all] We will start with a google
doc.BK: The comment feature is very helpful.NS: We can link to the google
doc from the CG pages.NS: Any high level things about the charter?NS: As a
controversial proposal, the full spec is really long. In the very sparse
print format of the spec, MathML full is 606 pages, about 20% of which is
appendices. Core is currently 217 pages, about half is appendices. What
about eliminating content and mixed markup chapters?DC: We should move
mixed markup to the notes. Can probably cut down content. Also,
presentation shrinks a lot because of core. Similarly the schema shouldn’t
be part of the rec.DC: Basically all the non-normative stuff moves to
notes.BK: We should talk about level 1 and level 2. Any additions to the
language would happen in level 2.DC: We are planning to add a semantics
attr to full. But it is really how to do content MathML in core.BK: We need
to make it clear what is and isn’t in scope. People probably will want to
expand things, but we need to keep things paired down.BK: example of EPUB…
<https://www.w3.org/2020/06/proposed-epub-3-charter.html>BM: there’s lots
of stuff in the spec that needs to be there for background/rationaleNS:
There are other things like an explainerDC: Those could be notesBK: I’ll
get something started with an outline and share it via email.BM: Here’s
something controversial: remove strict content MathMLDC: probably not worth
talking about on the core call.NS: Let discuss this in the semantics call.*


Received on Monday, 20 July 2020 19:29:12 UTC