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

Following on to a comment I made as it relates to Bruce's overzealous AT:
>
> I had one other thought: I think we should add a "uses-intent" (name to be
> figured out) argument to <math>. Right now, if "intent" is used, the author
> has specified the speech. But if intent is not given, then (with my
> proposal) the defaults should be used. But AT doesn't know if the MathML
> was generated by an intent-aware tool or not. With "uses-intent" (default
> "false"), then the author is declaring that AT should use the defaults. If
> "uses-intent" isn't present (legacy and non-semantic authoring tools), then
> AT would be free to use heuristics to infer intent. A simple example is
> x^T. MathCAT will infer that "transpose" is meant. If uses-intent is
> true/present, then it should be "power". If the author had meant
> "transpose" (or something else), they would have indicated that via intent.
> "uses-intent" becomes a way to distinguish between intent-aware generation
> and legacy generation.


I think a "uses-intent" attr (name to be figured out) would have three
values:

   - false (default) -- AT should feel free to apply whatever heuristics
   they feel are appropriate for the speech unless intent is given on an
   element (i.e., elements without intent can have  heuristics applied to them.
   - common -- AT should follow the defaults outlined in some AT
   requirements spec, which includes using intent if it is given
   - basic -- speak the syntax unless there is an intent given


I think the later value is inline with what Bruce and Deyan said they
wanted (don't say something wrong). This keeps things simple for AT.

    Neil



On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 5:44 AM Miller, Bruce R. (Fed) <
bruce.miller@nist.gov> 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/
>
>