Re: [MathOnWeb] call for comments -- directions for 2018

Hi everyone,

Let me try to kick things off by posting my own thoughts.

> 1. what topics would you like the group to focus on in 2018?

As might be expected, I'm ok with the current focus but given that it's
really 3-4 people working actively in the group,

Personally, I'll likely have most time to work on ideas for CSS. In
particular, I would like to pick one of the features we've been discussing
(e.g., vertical-align at specific child) and wrap it up, i.e., pseudo-spec
it out and take that that to WICG to get input from the wider standards and
developer community.

I continue to be interested in building more examples for fully accessible
equation rendering in HTML and SVG. I think we need far more tools and as a
basis before we can start identifying limitations in ARIA. Still, I
unfortunately expect to have less time for that this year than last.

> 2. what directions do you want/hope/wish/expect to see take shape?

On the scope of the group, I hope we find additional focus areas that can
bring additional contributors. Two potential areas I see are the
standardization of ascii-like equation input languages and richer semantics
from computational tools.

On the large scope, let me be seemingly negative here: I hope that 2018
will be the year that sees MathML being deprecated from HTML5.

It will be 20 years in April since MathML 1 became a REC and it is no step
closer to browser vendors giving a damn about it. I think the key reason
nowadays is that MathML has simply become an outdated technology for the
web: it may have been a good fit for the web of the 1990s but today it goes
against that grain of the web.

I think deprecating MathML from HTML 5 would be a positive step forward for
two reasons.

First, the empty promises of MathML hold the web back. As long as native
MathML solutions remain an expectation,  it will continue to reduce
leverage for more useful specs (i.e., parts for actually supported
standards like CSS or ARIA). This means general web developers continue to
miss out on good features because they don't have the support of those
people hoping to see MathML - in particular of course those developers
whose equation-related tools actually help the community -- MathJax,
speech-rule-engine, mathlive, katex, mathquill, jqmath etc etc.

Second, being part of HTML5 is holding MathML back. There are plenty of
problems and limitations of the MathML spec specific to XML land where
MathML still fits well into the technology stack. MathML should become
better in the areas where it always succeeded rather than where it always
failed, i.e., in XML documents and their workflows rather than the web.

> 3. what organizational changes would you like to see?

I think we should start having two different meeting times to enable more
people to join the meetings.

E.g., one in the UTC morning and one in the UTC night (on different days).
We could also increase the meetings to one meeting every week (so that if
you attend only one of those meetings, you'll stay bi-weekly).

A minor thing but I would also propose to consider changing the name of the
group. The main focus is equation rendering but in any scientific context
(not just mathematical); it might help to clarify that.

Best,
Peter

2018-01-12 14:46 GMT+01:00 Peter Krautzberger <peter@krautzource.com>:

> Hi everyone,
>
> While the last meeting didn't have any formal minutes, we still concluded
> with an action item: a call for comments to all members of the group
> (active or not).
>
> It's fair to say that the CG had a slow start in 2016 but we've been doing
> better in 2017, finding possible directions (and discarding a few). To
> recap, we primarily focused on a) techniques and missing features in CSS
> layout that make equation rendering easy, b) techniques and missing
> features for using ARIA to convey mathematical and scientific meaning in
> equation rendering.
>
> We'd like to get comments from you on three questions:
>
> 1. what topics would you like the group to focus on in 2018?
> 2. what directions do you want/hope/wish/expect to see take shape in 2018?
> 3. what organizational changes would you like to see?
>
> While the CG's activities have naturally focused more on the interests of
> active members, this is the time for passive members to chime in. If you're
> subscribed to this list, we would appreciate it if you write a short
> message!
>
> Best wishes to all for the new year!
> Peter Krautzberger & Daniel Marques.
>