Re: WG draft charter

Agreed Brian, just want to raise the issue that we need accessibility semantics as a normative portion of the specification and recognized by the charter itself. Adding non-normative technique documents for testing and ensuring that accessibility semantics is done correctly is also beneficial as you pointed out.  We need both or accessibility won’t be a priority and won’t be adopted by mainstream browsers and tools which create MathML.

Thanks
EOM
Charles LaPierre
Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
Imageshare Project Manager
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
Skype: charles_lapierre


On Jul 21, 2020, at 8:42 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com<mailto:bkardell@gmail.com>> wrote:

I mean, this is a starting point so we have a way to discuss and edit together, not remotely close to a final draft, probably.

I suppose different people will disagree, , but I don't think that should be surprising in and of itself. Practices/techniques/notes documents aren't generally normative - They aren't in epub charter or even in the ARIA WG charter. It could be that there should be a normative spec, or that the spec should contain this itself -- I woud have expected normative things would go there (in a spec, that is), but I assumed we should start with something that provided flexibility where there were questions about where something should be - and that as written, these could live in the spec itself or another spec that wasn't in this group, but belong to the coordinators/liasons who straddle groups (you, for example).  Maybe that's not right, but that's the purpose of getting a starting document - so we can have all these discussions.




On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:20 AM Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org<mailto:charlesl@benetech.org>> wrote:
Hi Neil, I am concerned that the “MathML Accessibility Techniques” is in the non-normative and in the “Such-As” category which is not obligated to be completed.

I feel really strongly that accessibility semantics and its corresponding techniques documents MUST be included or we will end up again with a specification that when implemented won’t be accessible.

I was expecting to see in the scope section that “Accessibility Semantics” would be part of this, and included in the “Normative Specifications” of the deliverables.

I would also also include possibly in the Other deliverables section a reference to Chemistry semantics, and potentially other semantics where mathML is used to represent a domain other that mathematics.

Thanks
EOM
Charles LaPierre
Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
Imageshare Project Manager
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
Skype: charles_lapierre


On Jul 20, 2020, at 3:43 PM, Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu<mailto:soiffer@alum.mit.edu>> wrote:

Brian wrote a starting point for our MathML Working Group charter. As per the meeting today, it is a google doc.<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W-oYUbOMueaqb3KFSWkjWVBwR6AzSEBizHwQhvSwfDc/edit#heading=h.x4m5sjbkoiqd> I have linked to it from our main MathML Refresh<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fmathml-refresh.github.io%2f&c=E,1,5xsN-HOa9VpxMMgExMNFudWwZvjqAs4ooExCSGhjLkOA_I92OokebPPu_u7J_DqRyfQzmOtNHBseBPZqqJfhNnucAPiVryzFi64XjE2uSECPEwS5nA9i8g,,&typo=1> page. Please take a look at it and comment on it or add things you feel are missing.

Many thanks to Brian for writing up such a great starting document!

    Neil


[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>     Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>



--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbkardell.com&c=E,1,XiZUzM6yNeinaIMRvRcHeCeCARASxSSIn2YOJ-mqW5lw4EQ1CPrw9dEkVbZOxMary-iZ3Sy_31P_fvdeeYwpOiC_z8XL9aLeNTYzATzUNtwHvBtYEFRao-E,&typo=1>