- From: Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:58:58 -0800
- To: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAESRWkCdNnOr2DWjTW+zs8CONkkhB438xkyKKnC7PP9njrYprA@mail.gmail.com>

Attendees: - David Carlisle - Sam Dooley - David Farmer - Deyan Ginev - Patrick Ion - Louis Maher - Bruce Miller - Murray Sargent - Neil Soiffer - Moritz Schubotz - Bert Bos - Paul Libbrecht Regrets: - Cary Supalo - Stephen Watt Announcements/updates We will meet on December 16. We will take off two weeks for the holidays and resume on Jan 6. NS: would like us to have a plan for intent by the end of the Dec 16 meeting so he can do some prototyping over the holidays. Hopefully, that is realistic. Background material Bruce's material: https://mathml-refresh.github.io/discussion-papers/semantics-mini Sam's Proposal: https://samdooley.github.io/mathml-docs/intent2cmml/intent.html Sam's Demo: https://samdooley.github.io/mathml-docs/intent2cmml/demo.html Deyan's proposal: https://prodg.org/talks/encyclopedic-intent Deyan's demo page :https://dginev.github.io/tiny-mathml-a11y-demo/ David C will present his proposal that resolves differences in some of the previous proposals. DC: Of the three people who made intent recommendations, Sam's was the most complicated. DC: Was not in favor of using wild cards. When you are referring to a grandchild, he discourages the use of slashes. He believes you should use variable names. DC: If you have something without intent, then your spec must say what your defaults are. DG: How are the defaults to be applied? BM: Deciding to use a specific language for a default is out of scope. PL: Found the binomial example to be useful in demonstrating the intent process. NS: Suppose people used mtable instead of mfrac for the binomial case? NS: Showed his pattern matching example. Pattern matching may be difficult. The fraction and vector cases were quite different. DC: You do not have to have default intent for everything. DF: Would it be possible to indicate the preferred markup for common objects? Sometimes there is more than one way to speak certain math expressions. Is it possible to specify a preferred way to write math? SD: We should not be saying that this is the preferred MathML way to specify things. You could have a library that generates presentation markup for certain operators. You could have default intent generated for this case. DF: I will write software which generates markup, so I would prefer to be told what kind of presentation MathML people want. If I have to guess, then people down the pipeline are stuck using my choice. DG: It is not clear that people will follow preferred presentation MathML suggestions. MOS: We should have default intent for standard presentation cases. MOS: Wants to develop tools and get input from users to see what works for generating speech. He wants to have voice output to check our intent efforts. NS: There are many audiences for the voice output. There will be many opinions of how to speak math expressions. MOS: To get a better understanding of the problems, we need voice output cases. DG: For his level one cases; DG will generate presentation and intent MathML and use this to test his default rules. There are 240 cases in DG's level one. DF: I will take DG's examples as the preferred markup, and start coding when that is available. MUS: There is an effort in LaTeX to specify intent. Simplicity plays a major role. I am interested in two additional formats: Unicode Math and LaTeX; then deducing intent from standard forms of these, or a pMathML version. NS: thinks mrows can be spoken as is, without rearranging their order. NS: We are not sure if we are allowing positional versus name references. We will talk about this next week. NS: If someone has something to present next week, please let NS know; otherwise, we will continue today's discussion next week. <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> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2021 21:59:21 UTC