search

nlbdev / mathml-guidelines

A collaboration on the MathML guidelines for marking up accessible math
1 stars 1 forks source link

Meta: We should test the visual rendering of MathML to inform the guidelines #28

Open samimaattaCelia opened 4 months ago

samimaattaCelia commented 4 months ago

We should test how different kinds of MathML markup works in various reading softwares. This came to my mind from Tim's issue #22 where they talked about testing <semantics> in the Calibre reader.

This wouldn't necessarily be included in the guidelines at all, but testing would inform us about what to write in the guidelines. Relates to #16.

What are we testing?

We would mainly test the visual rendering of equations. MathCAT can interpret MathML code even if it's not visually rendered. Though some reading programs might just skip math equations all together if they don't support it.

If we test, which programs do we use?

Do we have any idea of the share of reading programs people are using? What are different agencies promoting? Celia doesn't distribute EPUB yet, but we would recommend using Thorium Reader.

Editing software

Do we care about the rendering in the editing softwares? Oxygen XML Editor, Calibre editor, Sigil...

Testing should be split up

To reduce the amount of work from testing it should be split up among the contributors. To make testing easier there should be a mark up example for a specific part of the guidelines, for example in an issue with the tag "testing" or something similar.

Lisahartun commented 2 months ago

With the new LCP-encryption from the 2nd og September 2024, we at Nota will only use Thorium. To my concern.

Lisahartun commented 2 months ago

Thorium is quite good with MathML, as far, as I can see.