Hi Alexis Before we do that, just a few comments about the draft:
* Section 2, header: is that really supposed to be "Policy", not "Policy Requirements"? * As a matter of ease of reference, could the bullet list please be a numbered list instead? * Do we need to be clearer on what "incidental use" is? * In the 5th bullet, does that need to be reworded to not sound like we are placing requirements on browsers? * I'm not sure I understand the implications of the sixth bullet (meaning and and formatting...). * Does PDF not have accessibility requirements or are we looking to meet a minimum bar? * The first sentence after the bullets "The RFC is authorized..." reads as though it extends to the content of the mathematical formula. Can we discuss precisely what is intended by that sentence? * In Section 3, I am curious if the 1st sentence restates general expectations. I don't know that it does, but it surely is a good general statement. * Side point: Are there operational considerations that would cause use of LaTeX equations to limit the use of Markdown? Thanks, Eliot On 02.06.2026 23:01, Alexis Rossi wrote:
Hi, After adoption, I sent an updated version of the math ID a few weeks ago, and we haven't had any further comments about it on the list. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-editorial-rswg-mathinrfcs/ Are we ready for a last call, or is there more to discuss? Thanks, Alexis
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
