On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 01:38:03PM -0700, Jonathan Wei wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 12:13:00 PM UTC-4, Trevor Saunders wrote:

>

> > do we really want to add another interface? It'll take time before we

> >

> > can assume its available everywhere, and more importantly it runs the

> >

> > risk of baking equation == mathml, and if people want to expose

> >

> > equations accessibly but don't start with mathml they'll have to fake it

> >

> > somehow.

>

> Currently, it doesn't appear we use the equation role for anything other than the <math> tag, so if people want to write equations in HTML or something else, they can do so anyway.

I'm more concerned about the platform API here, and it seems pretty

reasonable to me that say a spread sheet appwould want to provide

equations that don't come from math ml.

> With regards to the addition of another interface, I'm not sure why it would matter if it's not immediately available everywhere, apart from maintenance of an implementation that no one is using yet - unless that was your point, as you've mentioned before in the meta-bug.

no, suppose we ask to add an interface and they do it, then we still

have to deal with that atk interface not existing everywhere for a long

time.

> I think most of the useful functionality can be exposed solely through roles and relations, so it's possible we don't need a dedicated public interface. The only thing in the interface right now is the tokenValue attribute for obtaining the value of a MathML token element or MathML glyph.

istm that should just be the accessible's text, and as I said earlier

I'd rather not have something math ml specific in any interface we do

need.

> > Why do we need this? it seems like its the same exact interface as

> >

> > nsIAccessibleTable with some stuff removed.

>

> It is indeed basically the same, to the point that the implementation borrows quite a bit of code from the HTML table implementation. I added it because I thought it might be useful to have a like interface to nsIAccessibleTable that allows you to iterate over the table returning objects implementing the MathML accessible interface. The single differentiating method to get the row label relies on a MathML feature that isn't supported in Gecko yet anyway, so the MathML table interface could probably be scrapped and the regular nsIAccessibleTable interface used if necessary.

I'm not sure I understand the iterating idea, but of course I'd rather

not add code that doesn't do something new.

> > More roles seem fine, and relations might be good but I think your wiki

> >

> > page may be adding too many, e.g. do we really need all the fraction stuff? or

> >

> > can we just say for an accessiblewith ROLE_FRACTION child[0] is the

> >

> > numerator and child[1] is the denominator and that's it?

>

> For the simple structures like fractions, I agree that half the relations aren't really needed, since MathML rigidly defines which child must represent what part of the structure. My general idea with the relations was to have them be a fairly comprehensive set for the structures, with both forward and backwards relationships. This was addressing a point brought up offhand by Jamie in comment 23 on the meta bug (

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=916419#c23). I guess we could just have the backwards (e.g. numerator to fraction) relationships, but it seems unbalanced. Maybe that doesn't really matter, though.

so, if you even need the numerator / denominator to relations to get

what Jamie wants there is unclear to me, I think it depends on exactly

how else you represent things.

For example if you represent (1 + 3) / (2 + 4)

as an accessible with role fraction whose children are accessibles with

role grouping then you need to walk the tree to find out your in a

fraction (which should be faster than checking if the relations are

there I think)

On the other hand if the representation is an accessible with role

fraction whose kids have role numerator and denominator then you escape

needing to crawl the tree or use relations but might be forced into have

more or less useless accessibles.

btw I sort of think Jamie is just wrong there, checking for relations is

btw I sort of think Jamie is wrong here, crawling the tree is probably

faster, and the relations would just do that internally anyway.

> For more complicated structures like <mmultiscripts>, we'll still need relationships going forwards and backwards to be able to give useful information about the structures.

I'm not exactly sure how that works, but trying to stuff it into

accessible text is kind of appealing especially considering you can do

sub scripts and super scripts in html / css.

Trev

> _______________________________________________

> dev-accessibility mailing list

>

[hidden email]
>

https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility_______________________________________________

dev-accessibility mailing list

[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility