Minutes: MathML intent meeting 10 June


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


   - Bruce Miller

Thanks to Louis for once again taking notes.

BB: Moved mathml core to W3C. BB: will send email instructions on how to
fully authorize your Github account for write access.

https://github.com/w3c/mathml-core https://github.com/w3c/mathml

Proposed: We move the mathml-core to FPWD, cleaning up whatever sorts of
minor things would be involved in that process. The editors will remain in
place for now, David will do the work of transitioning it.


We introduced ourselves to our new members.
Continue discussion on CSS and intents

Neil: We were talking about proper structures, but I can't recall where we
left off.
PL: I think we agreed that CSS selectors were entirely insufficient.
Whether CSS was used or not was, I think strongly put in question. In
general CSS is used by many people and we're not necessarily trying to make
things converge..

The current stance is probably that CSS can enrich default intents so that
they can be applied by some algorithm just the same way the default intents
are (by inferring on content or by applying only to well structured content

NS: If you are matching, what structure are you matching aginst.

DG: Showed an example of a single expression containing the presentation
MathML for: "x is in the open interval from zero to one and y is in the
open interval from negative one to zero". In various pMML flavors generated
by different tools today.

PL: Is expression navigation (LHS/RHS of equality, individual parts of a
fraction...) important for accessibility?

NS: There have been studies that say that you can retain about seven words
when something is read to you. For anything bigger you need navigation.

NS: topics for next week. We need to review the core spec; should do that
before the meeting and we can discuss any issues that aren't editorial
(send those to David).
What do we require for structure (mrows, etc) for intents to be usable

DG: A new draft of a working note on "canonical mrows" at
https://hackmd.io/@dginev/Bk4Zf9B9O . Still needs additional thinking, but
has some discussion on

   1. current presentation MathML trees from different authoring tools on
   the same running example.
   2. various XPath incantations for selectors with which a "default
   notations dictionary" could specify "implied intent", e.g. for K-12
   educational notations.

DG: We ran out of time, so we only discussed the currently produced
presentation MathML trees. I am not actually *advocating* for the defaults,
I am *investigating* possible avenues for them. Is there a subset of
notations where we have no ambiguity, but still have 80/20 "Good"
remediation for free? Should the specification impose a canonical
presentation tree to get us there?

DG: As an aside, it is good that the explicit intent values we discussed in
2020 allow to remediate all flavors of today's presentation MathML, by
simply targeting the "lowest common ancestor".

Received on Friday, 11 June 2021 17:43:51 UTC