- From: Deyan Ginev <deyan.ginev@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 19:57:27 -0400
- To: Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
- Cc: public-mathml4@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CANjPgh_bP6phu6HUe1046Hj=Po0eueZR9kjeLw-jFzQGxxB+Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Neil, all, Names are tricky to brainstorm on the spot, so here's a seeding email with another direction we haven't discussed (I think?). I recalled MathML has had "alttext" and "altimg" for some time, exactly for accessibility purposes. So one suggestion trying to keep with the spirit of MathML 3 could be to introduce an "alttree" attribute for the tree-like annotations we have been discussing. Or slightly removed from those details, maybe "altcontent" ? An even more conservative take would be to outright use the existing "alttext", but specify custom handling when its values match our new annotation syntax. In a more literary direction, attribute names such as "readout" or "narration" feel appealing to a point, but may be too detached from the technical details... I only find them preferable when comparing to "semantics". Greetings, Deyan On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:33 PM Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > We meet again on Thursday, 24 Sept at 10am Pacific, 1pm Eastern, 7pm > Central European Time. > > One thing to think about before the meeting is a different name for what > we are currently calling the "semantics" attribute. Most people agree > that is too loaded a word and we should figure out another name for it. > Potentially, "subject" should also be changed and if there is a synergistic > pair, that would be great. > > Agenda: > 1. Charter > a) timeline for getting things done > b) better name than "semantics" -- need something for charter usage > 2. Semantics names -- continue discussion with Deyan's google doc as a > framework > a) More discussion on the meaning/purpose of the various levels > b) Amount of details: (still unresolved) "millimeter" vs "unit"; > "hydrogen" vs "element", etc. > 3. Continued discussion on "semantics" > a) continue discussion of David C's idea to deal with alignment > b) continue discussion on n-ary operators, especially +/- and > relational operators > > > > <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> > <#m_-1760061647730373200_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2020 23:58:06 UTC