- From: Deyan Ginev <deyan.ginev@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:07:30 -0400
- To: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>
- Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, www-math@w3.org
Hi Paul, Yes, exactly, I was trying to motivate why these custom strings are needed in general - happy you agree! --- Re: Bruce's mention of a custom keyword to make this explicit, I think that won't be needed in what we've prototyped so far, since the "Level 3 fallback" technique handles the case. intent="B-double-prime" intent="p-n-tilde" intent="F-tau-star" would just get the baseline aria-label treatment initially (as they are unknown to the AT tool), until a day comes that some AT tool developer decides to add special rules anchored on them. Greetings, Deyan On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 9:18 AM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net> wrote: > > > 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 16:09:10 UTC