On 09-Jun-26 02:41, Russ Housley wrote:
On Jun 3, 2026, at 3:04 AM, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> 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.
Imagine a flowchart as a figure. Is "x > y" at a decision point in the flowchart a
incidental use of math? Based on the rest of the sentence I think not. It requires that "any
math content is only illustrative".
Maybe we need a weasel word or two, because we are never going to resolve this
precisely in a policy document.
Is "x > y" illustrative in plain text? From a quick test, a screen reader is very likely
to read it as "x y". Are we going to require MathML for such a case?
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
