minor proofreading edits, 11/07/2024

[dginev]

This PR is not related to active action items.
It contains misc edits from proofreading that are not meant to introduce any changes:

• consistent descendant spelling
• removed an extra used by
• changed AT's to supported
• added speech part to the example for underscore function use
• (I think?) clearer word order on concept addition/removal
• dropped dash from unannotated

If some of these are not useful, feel free to cherrypick anything of interest and close here.

[davidcarlisle]

I commented on a couple of changes don't seem quite right, all the others look good thanks

[davidcarlisle]

I think this should just have x prime (which I just checked also matched what mathcat does) I don't see how you can get x superscript prime as the intent masks the presentation so you are explicitly stoping the "superscript" being read (if you are using the intent at all) The system may of course have an option to read the underlying markup ignoring intent but that shouldn't be in this "intent examples" section.

[dginev]

Right, exactly, when the intent is used it is x prime. That's the starting fragment before the <br/>.

The second entry is the speech when intent isn't used - I copied it directly from the example right above, there are several that follow that pattern.

[davidcarlisle]

they do? I'll look again when it's not midnight, as I say wasn't planning on rushing any edits:-)

[davidcarlisle]

If some of these are not useful, feel free to cherrypick anything of interest and close here.
I could do this, thanks but I'll leave it for a bit for others to comment, Probably at the weekend...

[davidcarlisle]

actually I think you are right and I did say that (but I think I was wrong in the meeting and it's better as it is) but now it's definitely too late to think about wording

[davidcarlisle]

@dginev on the readings with and without intent. You are right, not only do the ones above have that style the text above that block of examples (which I guess I wrote, but didn't read) explicitly says that is what they are

These cases would be distinguished as follows, showing possible readings with and without intent

So obviously your addition here is good.

That said I think the example display isn't clear. If you jump to a single example, and you are tired it really isn't clear that the the two line text example is line 1 with intent and line 2 without. I think we should experiment with modifying the format, perhaps having an explicit intent/nointent comment on each. But that doesn't need to be in this PR

[davidcarlisle]

@dginev thanks for adjusting the branch, there is nothing remotely controversial in the remaining edits so merging now