Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > Leaving aside the exercise in extreme pedantics[1], this choice might > be OK. But it can also be extremely inaccessible.
I was surprised that in the last that debate that latex seemed to win.
I am still not sure if I'm pleased by that result, mostly because I'm not
convinced it's a sufficient stable/well-defined specification such that
issues of accessibility can even be addressed.
{I've used latex for way too long... I became the "resident" latex expert
at the university before I got my driver's license... }
{description of search issue omitted}
> You know the other great thing? We're getting into questions that
> aren't in scope for setting policy. So they are increasingly academic.
The policy question is, I think, what is the list of things that we *could*
*normatively* specify. And what are the criteria for that list.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
