- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 17:55:11 +0100
- To: "Miller, Bruce R. (Fed)" <bruce.miller@nist.gov>
- Cc: Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>, Stephen Watt <smwatt@gmail.com>, Murray Sargent <murrays@exchange.microsoft.com>, www-math@w3.org
I think the compromise is going to be “conforming ATs will be required to …” and that this conformance will include a way to change the defaults without including an intent everywhere (in a form similar to a stylesheet). Paul On 11 Nov 2022, at 14:44, Miller, Bruce R. (Fed) wrote: > On 11/10/22 5:09 PM, Neil Soiffer wrote: >> Stephen, >> >> If there are no defaults, then all instances of msup require an intent. So not only do the > > "Require" only if you require that msup is *never* spoken as "superscript". > > Having a defaulting mechanism, and a set (or sets) of defaulting rules is a good thing! > But it should be optional, and they should only be applied if there is an assertion > that those rules apply to a particular document (or formula or ...). > > Otherwise, all the existing, and most future, MathML will suddenly be *required* to be read incorrectly. (as opposed to "is currently read incorrectly by overzealous AT") > > bruce > > -- > bruce.miller@nist.gov > http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/
Received on Friday, 11 November 2022 16:55:27 UTC