Reminder: Special 2 hour MathML meeting on Thursday

 We meet on Thursday at: 10am Pacific, 1pm Eastern, 7pm Central European Tim
*e*. The meeting will *end *at noon Pacific, 3pm Eastern, 9pm CET.
Apologies to those who will be working late.

The regulars for this group should have the meeting details in their
calendars. For everyone else, the details can be found on the members-only
W3C Math WG calendar

This week we will devote two hours to a topic that has reared its head
several times and one that we still need to resolve conflicts in: concept

There is a tension between concept names wanting to speak in a natural way
(which can lead to idiosyncratic names) and concept names being less ad-hoc
so that they follow some naming convention based on the concept they
represent (encyclopedic name).

This conflict sometimes shows itself in names for the unicode characters
also. For example "ellipsis" vs "dot-dot-dot" or maybe even "equals" vs

The naming problem is less of an issue for core concepts because AT can
speak them as they see fit since they can know how the concept might be
spoken, but for open concepts, that ability is not likely present. I think
we agreed core and open should follow similar if not identical naming rules
because open concepts potentially will migrate into core. Also, some AT may
not implement all of core, so the speech issues for open are potentially
present for core.

One more facet related to naming: fixity properties. We have function
(default), prefix, infix, postfix, and silent. My belief is we need a few
more to allow for more natural speech in some cases, but I don't think
everyone shares that opinion. To throw out what is certainly a wild idea:
we could add a matchfix property that takes everything before the first "_"
or "-" (or both) and speaks it first, and speaks the remainder after the
last item (e.g, "open-close" for parens). This potentially extends to a
notation with multiple "-"/"_" and multiple arguments. Of course literals
can also be used, but that removes freedom from AT.

Apologies for any prejudice I may have shown in the above description of
the problem. We hopefully will have time to thoroughly discuss multiple
ideas related to naming during the call. This is a difficult topic to solve
(IMHO), but I hope we can at least make some significant progress towards a
solution even if we don't reach a final solution.

1. Announcements/Updates/Progress reports
2. Concept names

Received on Thursday, 1 February 2024 08:36:10 UTC