Re: please read before our meeting...

Hello again;

   So, my biggest problem with this section is that it tends to be too 
distributed; as you keep reading, you keep accumulating clarifications,  
corrections, nuance, so that you don't really know what eg. "known" is, 
or how to use it, or if it's even consistent, until you get to the end & 
you've assembled all the pieces.  This may make it nice to read as 
literature, but hard to use as a specification.

My suggestions (with lots of hand-waving):

5.1 Grammar for intent: should focus on the grammar and it's 
terminology, but not get into how it's used.  So under the "concept" 
item, everything after "A known concept..." should be pushed back to 
5.2. OR at most replaced by "A concept may be known or not, see 5.2".

5.2 Intent Concept Dictionaries: should focus on describing the 
dictionaries, and how concepts are matched (and thus should define 
Known/Unknown), but still should defer how the entries are used. So, 
under item Core, all but the 1st paragraph should be pushed back to (a 
new) 5.4.

5.4 Intent Self References: doesn't seem to warrant it's own section. 
Can't it be stated in 5.3 that a property can stand alone, w/o a concept?

5.4 (New!) How to apply Concept & Property Hints: This should collect in 
one place how known concepts, unknown concepts, literals,  might be 
spoken, with whatever level of compulsion, and how properties may or may 
not modify them.  If we have it in one place, any contradictions may be 
easier to detect :>

Aside: I have a tendency to think of "Concept" and "Property" as 
corresponding to "What" and "How", but this projection isn't completely 
consistent with all our use cases, or terminology. Should it be? I 
dunno, but at least that may explain some of my prejudices :>

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 19:04:07 UTC