- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>
- Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 15:18:50 +0200
- To: Deyan Ginev <deyan.ginev@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, www-math@w3.org
On 8 Oct 2021, at 14:05, Deyan Ginev wrote: > Plenty of diversity. Isn’t the purpose of “manually encoding intent” precisely to cover this diversity? One day it’s a single variable name, the other day it’s “derived f” and yet another day it’s something else. It must be the discretion of the author to let the AT know what to do with B’ and that’s what intents are for. I thought that the geometry case that we presented was a single variable name… and indeed, there’s lots of different others that may need to be processed manually or let it be half-way-well automatically pronounced. paul
Received on Friday, 8 October 2021 13:19:09 UTC