On 11-Jun-26 20:32, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
Hello Martin,
On 2026-06-11 09:43, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2026, at 09:13, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
Based on this discussion I've opened
https://github.com/alexisannerossi/id-mathinrfcs/pull/10
The main change, aside from dropping the word "crude", is to split the usage
requirement in three:
1. Block equations need to use the math form always.
2. Inline equations in text can use the math form, but can also use a simpler
representation where that makes more sense.
3. Equations in figures probably can't use the math form, so they either need
to be purely illustrative or any math needs to appear elsewhere.
Does that sound reasonable?
Yes, I think the new text is a big improvement.
I agree.
I'm also glad that the "crude" is gone. But I think the paragraph that
had the "crude" still tilts too much against simple plain text use.
I don't really agree with that, but there is a slight problem. The text will
now read:
"native support can then be used in place of such alternatives; see {{guidance}} for
more"
but in fact the new improved guidance is *not* in section {{guidance}}, it's
embedded in the Policy section.
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
