[math-on-web] CG meeting minutes, 2018/01/18

Hi everyone,

The minutes are blow.

The next meeting will be on Feb 1 and we will focus on kick-starting the
task forces for 2018.

Best,
Peter.

# MathOnWeb CG 2018-01-18

* Volker: didn't write a comment; it would have been "let's not re-hash the
same old discussions every week"
* Dani: I think F2F will be best to sort some things out
* Peter:
  * review call for comments
  * plan potential task forces for 2018
* Neil: font improvements are interesting. Anyone interested?
  * Volker:
  * Arno: only have one font b/c I can't get access to metrics of fonts
    * interesting beyond equations
    * reference for other work?
    * Peter: https://discourse.wicg.io/t/font-metrics-api/2417
  * Neil: is Houdini alive?
    * Peter: yes. Look up Tab Atkins
* Dani: for equation display, I see two approaches
  * 1) no JS. I.e., HTML+CSS
  * 2) with JS. Then have to compute metrics
  * Neil: right. metrics means client-Side JS
    * Peter: though Houdini sits in between as it uses JS for new CSS,
claims its path towards new CSS features
  * Arno: editing obviously needs JS
    * Think we need both and they might differ
  *  Dani: agreed. It's just that it requires different task forces
    * Peter: agreed, while I wished it wasn't the case
      * ideally, client and server-side rendering would be identical
  * Peter: @Dani so propose two task forces for client / server rendering?
    * Dani: yes but I personally more on server-side
* Peter: is there interest in purely client-side rendering (web components,
Houdini)?
  * Neil: I'd be interested but have no plans
  * Peter: you might want to talk to the developer of fmath
* Neil: promise to write a comment
* Volker: interested in ARIA spec for navigation
  * Dani: I'd be interested in that
* Dani: if we can come up with a unified vision for mathematics, then we
can try to bring that to TPAC for feedback
  * Dani: we come across as divided
* Neil: it would be good to take one piece of CSS and try to get wider
support from web devs
  * Peter: makes sense; it's what I've been trying to do and continue
* Neil: stretchy characters might be another
  * Peter: anyone interested?
* Neil: strike-through might be another
  * Arno: interested
* Arno: my email had two CSS definitions
  * stretchy
  * menclose-like notations (crossing out etc)
* Dani: I think we need to document how people are doing things right now
  * ACTION: Peter should start with collecting that
* Peter: should we set up two meetings, both bi-weekly?
  * ACTION send out test doodles
* ACTION:
  * @Everyone start your task forces
  * @task forces: start gathering existing techniques
  * @Arno write email about ideas for common abstract format needs