From 02710c3fd8068e6aa60ef97dfae6e70b2bed97a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bruce Miller
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 11:18:16 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Corrections suggested by D.Carlisle
---
src/intent.html | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/intent.html b/src/intent.html
index 339542f..aa05f90 100644
--- a/src/intent.html
+++ b/src/intent.html
@@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ Using Intent Concepts and Properties
match. If arguments were given explicitly in the intent
then their number gives the arity, and the fixity is determined from an explicit property
or may default from the concept dictionary. Otherwise, arity is assumed to be 0.
- An concept is considered a known concept (to the AT)
+
A concept is considered a known concept (to the AT)
when the normalized name, the fixity property, and the arity
all match an entry in the AT's concept dictionary.
The speech hint in the matching entry
@@ -336,8 +336,8 @@
Using Intent Concepts and Properties
This can be a useful technique, especially for large constructs such as tables as
it allows the children to be inferred without needing to be
explicitly referenced in the `intent` as would be the case with an applicaton.
- For example, `<mtable intent=":array">...` might read the table as
- an array of values, whereas `<mtable intent=":aligned-equations">...`
+ For example, `<mtable intent=":matrix">...` might read the table as
+ an array of values, whereas `<mtable intent=":system-of-equations">...`
might read the table in a style more appropriate for a list of
equations. In both cases the navigation of the underlying table
structure can be supplied by the AT system, as it would for an