Re: [EXTERNAL] Some braille references

Are we talking about “auto-boxing” when going from presentation to 
Nemeth? This seems to converge with what Deyan was suggesting as a 
“minimum structure” but, as this example shows, there’s a whole 
good deal of uncertainty in the automatic recognition…

Maybe a good idea is to find a way to let the user recognise in a 
supported fashion that the boundaries are like this or that. There are 
many cases where the boundaries of a big-operator are not clear from 
reading the formula alone except with subtle spacing hints.

paul

On 6 Jul 2021, at 21:23, Murray Sargent wrote:

> It’s nice when an integral ends with the ⅆ𝑥, since you know for 
> sure where the integrand ends. But it’s not necessary for Nemeth 
> braille. For example, the integral
> [cid:image003.png@01D77261.C38A64A0]
>
> has the Nemeth braille
> ⠮⠰⠴⠘⠆⠨⠏⠐⠹⠨⠈⠈⠙⠨⠹⠌⠁⠬⠃⠀⠎⠊⠝⠀⠨⠹⠼
> Here the integrand is presumed to be the fraction and no more, but 
> that is admittedly a heuristic. I use that heuristic both for LaTeX 
> and for Nemeth braille, since OfficeMath needs to know the integrand 
> (as does MathType). In MathML, it’s important to enclose the 
> integral and the integrand in <mrow>’s (although I apply the 
> heuristic to poorly formed MathML as well).
>
> Thanks,
> Murray
>
> From: Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 12:11 PM
> To: Louis Maher <ljmaher03@outlook.com>
> Cc: Murray Sargent <murrays@exchange.microsoft.com>; www-math@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Some braille references
>
> I forgot to add in my last message that the reason I asked the 
> question about integrals is because, if the Pearson statement is true, 
> that would be a case of a non-presentation example of braille (because 
> the 'dx's location would be different than in the presentation and 
> hence require a little semantics knowledge).
>
>      Neil
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:55 AM Neil Soiffer 
> <soiffer@alum.mit.edu<mailto:soiffer@alum.mit.edu>> wrote:
> In the pearson symbol site, it says this about 
> integrals<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faccessibility.pearson.com%2Fresources%2Fnemeth-curriculum%2Fnemeth-symbol-library%2Findex.php%23IndefiniteIntegral&data=04%7C01%7Cmurrays%40exchange.microsoft.com%7Cdb69f0a4f2e4430c772408d940b1c46c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637611954565150264%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=v78kicPzBhRq4XQ838AeQQxV7p8Xd%2BTLufSOmDBdNnE%3D&reserved=0> 
> :
> The integral, or indefinite integral, starts with the integral sign 
> (dots 2-3-4-6). Then it is followed by the function and ends with dx.
>
> I'm dubious about this statement -- what happens when the 'dx' is in 
> the numerator? I looked in the green book, and in the section about 
> integrals, it only has examples where the 'dx' is at the end (also 
> true for the APH tutorial). Does anyone who knows Nemeth well know the 
> answer?
>
> Another practical bit I liked from that talk was a short description 
> of "common issues in Nemeth code transcriptions" from a practitioner 
> writing such materials
>
> Interesting to see that she highlights the parts that I called out in 
> my original email (makes me feel like I know more than I do :-)
>
>    Neil