Minutes: MathML meeting 3 June


   - Bert Bos
   - David Carlisle
   - Sam Dooley
   - David Farmer
   - Deyan Ginev
   - Paul Libbrecht
   - Louis Maher
   - Bruce Miller
   - Steve Noble
   - Murray Sargent
   - Cary Supalo
   - Neil Soiffer
   - Moritz Schubotz
   - Christopher Comninel
   - Brian Kardell
   - Laurence Zaysser


   - Stephen Watt

Thanks to Louis for once again taking notes.
Announcements/updatesother announcements

CS: talked about the ISLAND conference (at https://islandconference.org/ ).
He is looking for talks.
Make a decision regarding location of github (CG's or W3C or some

DC: Has repositories from the old math group, and from other efforts. Where
do we put the current efforts?

NS: Keep separate repositories. Where will the polyfills go? Perhaps leave
them where they are.

NS: We will publish notes. Where do they go?

BK: What happens when a note grows larger than a note?

BB: Says store them in W3C.

DC: Move the current CG MathML to the W3C.

Proposal A

Move mathml-refresh mathml repo to w3c (to keep issues) (this requires
Bert's admin access)

Make directory for mathml-full then make new directories copying in the
other CG as sub directories

Proposal B

Just move mathml-core to w3c as a separate repository

BK: We want only a small number of repositories.

NS: Store notes, polyfills and discussions.


Change the owner of mathml-refresh/mathml-core to W3C as its own repo
w3c/mathml-core Change owner of mathml-refresh/mathml to W3C replacing the
existing w3c/mathml Keep w3c/xml-entities unchanged and retire the
duplicate copy under mathml-refresh.

In the future we wil create another 'catch-all' repo to move important
notes, polyfills and discussions.
Intents and CSS (email from Paul that starts the thread; document with his

PL: Make CSS deal with intent.

Difficult to get people to help with pronunciations from other languages.
People will contribute work if they can check the work immediately. CSS can
provide styles. There should be a way to put intents with CSS.

PL: Discussed is e-mail example. From Paul Libbrecht to Everyone:

LZ: From a publishing perspective, it is important a CSS proposal does not
become expensive to produce. Hand-annotating MathML is not viable.
Customizing CSS as a requirement to authors is not viable. A light-weight
solution would really be the only adoptable one.

NS: HTML is ment for semantics and CSS is meant for styling and

NS: You must add a class to make this work.

BM: If the authoring system can add something semantically oriented then
you can have a user style sheet for a specific language. The abstract
concept certainly has value, even if CSS may be an odd fit.

DG: A good perspective away from the word "semantics" is "meaningful use in
the domain of application". CSS class names, such as "progress-bar" in
Bootstrap components, carry all kinds of implied UI behaviours to frontend
developers, and often anchor the frontend JS code. The intent attribute
could provide a similar service to AT.

DG: The path for actually using the specification for producing an
accessible outcome is loosely 1) how to author MathML with intent
annotations, 2) the exact representation details of the intent attribute
values and 3) obtaining narration strings from the deposited annotations.
Paul's proposal seems to be a first study in the last piece, where we could
need some user stylesheets to customize e.g. speech synthesis. The "Initial
list of intent" spreadsheet has multiple examples of "speech hints", also
in this direction, but DG doesn't know what would be a best practice for
serving them in applications.

NS: If AT can not see CSS, then we can't use it.

NS: Continue this discussion next week. As with the other proposal, DG's
observation about mrow's is pertinent here.
Questions For Later Discussions

DF: Does cut and paste contain intent information? The answer will impact
several proposals. (MathML attribute should be copied all but... when does
it copy... Only MS Word does it well and does not contain intents).

DG: Writing requirements for mrows. Should there be a difference made in
authoring tools? Should we have standards that would allow the mrows to be
accessible by using default rules.

Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2021 17:52:04 UTC