Hopefully this helps: https://github.com/alexisannerossi/id-mathinrfcs/pull/9
Inline with some notes where appropriate.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2026, at 14:21, Eliot Lear wrote:
> • Do we need to be clearer on what "incidental use" is?
I don't think so. There is judgment involved here, but whether math is
considered incidental to the purpose of a figure should become clear with time.
RPC policies might evolve to handle that better than this policy can.
> • I'm not sure I understand the implications of the sixth bullet
> (meaning and and formatting...).
I don't think that the implementation being considered achieves this goal, so
I'm going to recommend that we remove it.
My understanding of the requirement was that it meant that you could extract
both the semantics of the math AND how to present it from the format chosen. I
am not 100% confident that MathML achieves that in all cases. If someone wants
to point to a resource that claims definitively that MathML can capture
meaning, I'd try to find a way to restore the text. But the MathML spec only
claims "describing mathematical notation and capturing both its structure and
content".
> • Does PDF not have accessibility requirements or are we looking to
> meet a minimum bar?
I did not seek to address this comment. I'm not enough of an expert here to
recommend something concrete.
If I had to volunteer a position, it is that PDF is best maintained with lower
a11y targets than HTML. If something can be done to make math more accessible
in PDF, the policy doesn't prohibit that work from being undertaken, but it
doesn't need to require it. To that end, I don't know if we want silence on
the point, or we could add a note about not having hard requirements for PDF.
> • 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?
I don't see how you would infer that. The sentence is a bit too long, but here
it is:
> The RPC is authorized to make decisions about the representation of
> mathematical notation for both technical and editorial reasons in order to
> ensure that published RFCs meet the above policy and to provide consistency
> across the RFC series.
I read that as saying that - for any document - the RPC can choose how to most
effectively present math. And that they need to consider policy, series
consistency, editorial, and technical concerns alike.
> • Side point: Are there operational considerations that would cause
> use of LaTeX equations to limit the use of Markdown?
None that I'm aware of. This is roughly how it works in kramdown-rfc today.
LaTeX is pretty good at this stuff and it fits pretty well.
~~~math
e^{i\pi}+1=0
~~~
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
