- From: Stephen Watt <smwatt@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:57:33 -0500
- To: Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CALozgsheEn=qP5t679p2ycNZJXcgx=6o7Uj2xMbvTDZiy4v57g@mail.gmail.com>
Neil, please accept and convey my regrets for this meeting. My Covid booster session went long! Stephen On Tue., Dec. 14, 2021, 5:00 p.m. Neil Soiffer, <soiffer@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > 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> > <#m_-7546301334210667230_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2021 17:57:59 UTC