Closed NSoiffer closed 1 year ago
Based on my current "soft preferences":
Spec language suggestion:
A possibly separate note, which may be attached to the list itself rather than the spec, should be guidelines for curating and naming entries. Expand for my first attempt at that:
The section @NSoiffer quoted from the current spec says a number of things, but as far as answering the question of what concepts should be included in the core list, all it says is "common". There's no mention of whether a concept needs special speech treatment, whether it can be spoken as-is, or whether it appears in ambiguous notations.
While those extra criteria could likely limit the size of the core list, a simple, single criterion of "common" is certainly much easier to understand (and maybe follow?). Personally, I'm pretty agnostic on the question, so long as we're all on the same page.
So is "common concepts" all we need? (We might clarify what we mean by "common", however.)
@brucemiller
So is "common concepts" all we need?
Basially, yes. Like the concepts given element names in content mathml or the list of Unicode slots in the Operator dictionary, or the list of characters given Unicode alphanumeric codepoints, the list is essentially arbitrary. The important thing is to have a list, to give implementers something to implement.
Trying to justify any list as "all, or most of K12 concepts" will just lead to endless debate about what concepts meet that criteria.
In practice the criteria might be "intent values with rules implemented in two or more systems by the time we reach CR and need to show implementations" but we don't have to describe it that way in the spec.
And yet, not having an explicit criteria also leads to endless debate, it seems. Indeed, it's difficult to contribute constructively to either the list or discussion without some idea of why a concept would be on the list, or even why a list is needed.
Giving "implementers something to implement" was, as I understood it, the motivation for adding only things that needed special treatment (since everything else basically implements itself). Does it really matter if some folks say "less than" and others "smaller than"?
OTOH, if the objective is just to have some convincing looking list, but the contents are arbitrary, isn't a better strategy just not to ask? :>
I really like that we don't state that the core list is comprehensive and that we say it is "curated" which implies we've used our experience to choose the values. I think it also implies it is something that isn't fixed. I think it is best to add a little about the decision process. Following @davidcarlisle's lead, perhaps we can extend @dginev's sentence
The list is curated by the Math Working Group.
to "The list is curated by the Math Working Group based on experience with different AT implementations and following the guidelines set out in [xxx note].
Overall, I like what @dginev wrote, although I have a few suggested changes besides the one above:
Certain readouts benefit from annotating the kind of mathematical object, rather than the concrete object.
"Some readings benefit from annotating the kind of mathematical object, rather than giving an explicit concept name to be spoken."
AT reading MathML attributed with a concept (or property) in this list SHOULD consider this concept (or property) to be a hint how the content could be read.
"... AT MAY use this concept as a hint to improve braille generation."
Are others ok with these changes? If so, can we get them into the spec before the meeting so we can discuss them?
Also, can "we" (@dginev or @davidcarlisle) get a draft note started based on @dginev's "Guidelines for Core list curation". As a draft note, it will be in some place that is easily referred to and potentially we can move it to be an "official" note at some point.
putting them in the spec before discussion seems backwards, I'll make a pr in my fork so it can be viewed at the meeting
I added @dginev 's text as amended by @NSoiffer apart from the line saying properties are in the same list (which would take more work as currently they are separate, and introduced later in the spec.
diff
https://github.com/w3c/mathml/compare/main...davidcarlisle:mathml:main
rendered view
https://davidcarlisle.github.io/mathml/#mixing_intent_dictionaries
@dginev 's text exactly used to initialise a new note
@davidcarlisle: thanks. That a much better way to do this.
This should be close-able in light of MathWG discussions which led to #471 and https://github.com/w3c/mathml-docs/commit/34827623d5c6a76c968f0b164527472070a1c2e1 . Letting someone else hit the "close" button just in case I misread the resolution.
At the last WG meeting, we agreed to create an issue so what we can resolve differences as to what the spec says about what belongs in core and what doesn't. Here's what it currently written: