Minutes_ MathML intent meeting 28 April_ 2022

20220428


Attendees:

*            David Carlisle

*            Sam Dooley

*            Bruce Miller

*            Murray Sargent

*            Bert Bos

*            Paul Libbrecht

*            Steve Noble

*            Louis Maher

*            Deyan Ginev

*            Cary Supalo


Regrets:

1. Announcements/Updates

2. Resolve current PR for Chapter 4<https://github.com/w3c/mathml/pull/325>. View the changes here<https://davidcarlisle.github.io/mathml/>. See Chapter 4 and Appendices F and G.

Note: this is about the structural change. Example folding and other formatting details have yet to be addressed.

DC: There are three open pull requests, one from Neil against chapter 3 and two on chapter 4 (from Sam and me).

BM: Should we put presentation MathML in the spec? Presentation MathML is not in spec 3.

DC: In MathML 3, all MathML was shown as xml source, and we have images saying what it should look like. This was the normative version.

DC: Should the normative version have MathML inline in spec 4?

DC: A major problem with the Chapter 4 specification is that the chapter was twice as big as necessary.

DC: Section 4.4 is gone. He put the material in section 4.3.

DC: Wants to merge his work into the main branch to shrink the diff file, and to make a good version which would be ready for proof reading to eliminate the duplicate material.

DC: has duplicated a lot of material to protect it from being lost.

SD: We need to decide where the section 4.4 material should go before we merge the entire thing.

DC: We are one year into a two-year charter. We need to make more progress.

MUS: What about checking in small amounts? We could check in the parts that SD and DC agree with.

DC: If you do not do all of the changes at the same time, many of the references would be broken.

PL: What is the problem with merging?

DC: has copied many of the 4.4 paragraphs into 4.3. This material needs to be cleaned up.

DC: The diff is not viewable because it is too big.

SD: We need to find a way to organize content MathML documents. We need to have a way to find an element easily.

BM: finds it difficult to look at the new version and know if anything useful has been lost. The new version is much easier to read.

DC: has a lot of duplicate material in his work. It needs to be worked on to eliminate the duplicate material.

DC: We do not have to change chapter 4 at all. The charter says not to change content MathML. We could start working on the intent spec and leave chapter 4 completely unchanged.

SD: We wanted to make chapter four more concise. We need to get out the first working draft (FWD) in the next six months.

DC: is worried about chapter five because it is empty.

SD: What is the fastest way to get DC's work into the FWD.

DC: Keep chapter 4 unchanged or push DC's work to the main branch.

DC: Does not want to do proof reading on his fork. He wants to do it on the main branch. He wants to commit his changes and then clean it up section by section.

SD: What information are we trying to communicate with each operator.

DC: will rearrange 4.3.4 again as suggested by BM to put (for example) all the binary arguments together under a new section level.

DC: Cannot do anything more on his branch until it is merged other than the rearrangement noted above.

SD: Is willing to follow DC's lead.

MUS: thinks the changes need to be merged to make things readable.

DC: will do some more work on chapter 4 and bring it back next week. If it is not accepted next week, then he will work on other things to give people more time to decide on Chapter 4.

SD: will hold off making changes to see if DC's branch can be merged into it.

SN: will work on the accessibility section.

DC: the intent section needs to be worked on.

DC: We should map out a timeline for when drafts need to be completed.

BB: There is no requirement for a certain number of working drafts.




Regards
Louis Maher
Phone: 713-444-7838
E-mail: ljmaher03@outlook.com