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

Stephen,

If there are no defaults, then all instances of msup require an intent. So
not only do the cases you mention require intent, so does x^2 for "x
squared". My goal in defining defaults is that common cases don't require
"intent". Note that the defaults have special cases and the special cases
for scripts and limits include when the base is a large op (as defined by
the operator dictionary (or explicitly given on <mo> -- I missed that case
in my proposal).

    Neil


On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:34 PM Stephen Watt <smwatt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, msup is definitely often not a power.   Off-hand some immediate
> examples are:  contravariant indices,  multiplicity counts in multisets,
> function labels (e.g. associated Legendre functions), ionization (e.g.
> Ba^{2+}), other labels (permutations and combinations), limits (as Murray
> mentioned, for any big operator integral, sum, product, evaluation, union,
> intersection, and, or, wedge, cartesian product, etc, nand, nor, etc),
> differentiation order, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Stephen
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 11:21 PM Murray Sargent <
> murrays@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>