Re: machine readability (conversation starters)

Hi Kevin,

Welcome to the Group!

>  Instead of marking up math layout with semantics we could go semantic by
default and then use styles to get different looks.

Generally speaking, if there's a large enough group, anyone can (and
should) pursue their ideas. The only caveat is that, I think, this is not
in scope for a Community Group.

There's also a risk that you'll end up reinventing the wheel, e.g., Content
MathML includes an element <vector> [1], any computational system will have
something like it.  The focus of this group is on helping existing tools so
it'd be good to hear about tools that go in this direction.

Best regards,
Peter.

[1] https://www.w3.org/Math/draft-spec/mathml.html#chapter4_contm.vector

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Kevin Barabash <kevinb@khanacademy.org>
wrote:

> > We need to allow authors to do high level semantic markup but we also
> know that most authors won’t do it. Marking up things at authoring time is
> hard work. Languages like TeX make it a little easier for things like units
> but aren’t a general solution.
>
> I'm new to the list so I'm sorry if I'm missing context of some of this
> stuff, but maybe we could flip things around. Instead of marking up math
> layout with semantics we could go semantic by default and then use styles
> to get different looks.
>
> As an example, vectors can be presented as bold or with an arrow over top.
> The HTML could be something like <vec>a</vec> to represent a vector, then
> there could be a CSS style like vec: { vector-style: 'arrow' }.. There
> could be something similar for multiplication, e.g. <binop op="mul"> with
> CSS like binop[op="mul"]: { symbol: &cdot; }.
>
>
>
>
>