Re: a minimal core intent proposal

We discussed this some at the meeting this morning. My proposal included a
statement that there should be a list of common intent names to help
authoring software know what to do. If is kind of buried at the start of
the document, so I've added a section calling that out more clearly. For
Unicode, it does mention that we should provide a default speech (actually
"meaning") table for Unicode chars typically used in STEM documents.

I have also added an "Internationalization" section that raises the
question of  who/what should be responsible for internationalization of
non-core intents. That includes non-core concepts (in my proposal) for
things like "absolute-value". I suspect this might be a hot button topic.


On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 4:26 AM David Farmer <> wrote:

> Let's consider absolute value.
> Is it this document, or somewhere else, that tells me to use
> the string "absolute-value" when I am specifying that?
> |X| can also mean determinant, cardinality, order, or length.
> Maybe not all of those are K-12 or K-14, but I think those should
> all be in core because they are reasonably common.  I am suggesting
> that as a general principle.
> Similarly, the draft mentions (a,b) as an open interval, but it
> could also be an ordered pair or a point in the Cartesian plane.
> Not sure if you are asking for specific instances, but one of my
> go-to examples is the LaTeX \times, which in K-14 can be
> multiplication
> cross product
> "by" as in 3-by-3 matrix or 10-by-12 foot room.
> A bit past K-14 it can be direct product or cartesian product,
> so by the principle I suggest above, those intents should also
> be in core.
> In biology, × is used to indicate a hybrid of two species, but
> maybe we don't care about that.
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2022, Neil Soiffer wrote:
> > I wrote a proposal 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
> >
> >
> >

Received on Thursday, 10 November 2022 22:55:01 UTC