- From: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:42:32 -0400
- To: www-math@w3.org
Let me first make a few smaller suggestions, for the record: 5.1 Grammar: I think I'd prefer "spaces" to "S" in the grammar, as easier to read 5.2; Item Core; last para: "who can not see the a fraction...", omit the "a" 5.2; last para, 2nd to last sentence: seems to have lost some text, as Deyan observed 5.3 Intent Properties: I'd prefer to have the ":" explicit in the description lists 5.3 Intent Properties; I'm kinda surprised to see power, index, evaluate as properties. Is this simply because there's no token available for a concise intent="power", and to avoid the more verbose intent="power($a,$b)"? If so, it seems an awkward precedent, unless we want to consider *any* concept to be a potential property. Scary? more to come; bruce On 10/23/24 00:08, Neil Soiffer wrote: > 5.2 Intent Concept Dictionaries > <https://w3c.github.io/mathml/#mixing_intent_dictionaries> > in the MathML spec had a PR that had lingered for a year. Bruce, > David, Deyan, and I had extensive discussions over the last few days > about how it should be rewritten so that AT developers know what they > should and what they are free to do. I have committed something that > we can discuss at our Thursday meeting. The section is about 1.5 pages > long, so it won't take too long to read, but is long enough that it is > a waste of time to read at the meeting. > > Please read it before the meeting and take note of what may be > confusing or what may be missing or wrong or differs from your > expectations. > > I'm looking forward to hearing what people think. > > Neil >
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2024 18:42:42 UTC