RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: a minimal core intent proposal

There is a problem with assuming msup is a power in that when the base is an integral, summation or other large op, msup is an upper limit. A very leeetle context is needed to make the right choice. It's easy and shouldn't require an intent or isa attribute.

Thanks,
Murray

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce R Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 12:59 PM
To: www-math@w3.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: a minimal core intent proposal

Let me second Deyan's thanks for a nice draft for discussion.

If I understood correctly, you're wanting to assume that msup (and other superscripts) are powers, by default; if they aren't the author must override the interpretation using intent.
That certainly covers a large use-case concisely...

BUT, with my LaTeXML hat on, where I take much abuse for sticking InvisibleTimes between things that aren't actually multiplied, I very often don't know whether a given superscript is a power or what it is.
So, should I use an intent="superscript" ?

I'd be more inclined to have default speech being more literal, meaning-agnostic, so that msup without intent would be spoken as "x superscript y" (or whatever the preference is).
Of course, there is still room (and need) for some kind of domain hints.

With my DLMF hat on, where there're lots of intervals, it pains me to think of
   intent = "open-interval@silent(_open_interval_from,$a,_to,$b)"
on *every* interval.  This leads me to wonder if some sort of "Intent Speech Rules"
could be feasible.  An author (or publisher) might define a set of rules like:
    open-interval($a,$b) ==> open-interval@silent(_open_interval_from,$a,_to,$b)
to customize speech patterns?

And finally, I also worry about stretching the intent syntax too far; @hint is already troubling enough (though I like it).  It's not quite clear how intent="unit" should work.
Perhaps
<mrow intent="unit($n,$unit)">
    <mn arg="n">3</mn>
    <mi arg="unit">cm</mi>
</mrow>
is more workable ?
Alternatively, I'm liking Deyan's ISA proposal for things like units, currency.

Other than those things, I like it :>
bruce

On 11/9/22 12:54, Neil Soiffer wrote:
> I wrote a proposal <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fmathml-docs%2Fminimal-intent-core&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cmurrays%40exchange.microsoft.com%7Cdd38b24efb2b40a6787b08dac2955f83%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C638036244077340285%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=hOPxag2aO413tRn7zUJ5gd30%2FC2no78%2Fea5PgW0BNPQ%3D&amp;reserved=0> for simplifying what goes into intent core. It ended up being sort of an "AT requirements" document for core. If I extend it a little further to include what AT should do with "intent" (currently just presumed everyone knows), it would be the basis for an actual AT requirements document (or appendix). It also serves to let authors/authoring software know what they can count on as default behavior by AT.
> 
> The proposal contains some open questions, but I believe it is fleshed out enough that it is understandable and actionable (let's do this/don't do this). It extends what I put in Deyan's intent spreadsheet and also has explanations. It will be the basis for the third agenda item on Thursday.
> 
>      Neil
> 


--
--
bruce.miller@nist.gov
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmath.nist.gov%2F~BMiller%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cmurrays%40exchange.microsoft.com%7Cdd38b24efb2b40a6787b08dac2955f83%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C638036244077340285%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=aZbyHqkm2%2FA0d0ty2Dq9VnI2ppJraa3icR%2Bi1MZppdA%3D&amp;reserved=0

Received on Thursday, 10 November 2022 04:20:18 UTC