On 12-Jun-26 10:45, Martin Thomson wrote:
I was lazy and seeking to avoid larger changes, but here's what I've just
updated the pull request to say:
OLD:
Mathematical notation in RFCs replaces existing practices for conveying
mathematical content. Inline ASCII and Unicode text or ASCII art and Scalable
Vector Graphics (SVGs) can be replaced by native support for content that only
contains math. In HTML, native support can then be used in place of such crude
alternatives; see {{guidance}} for more on this. Other publication formats may
use the best solution available for displaying math. This document specifically
removes support for displaying math in Unicode or SVG figures in the HTML
publication format in most cases.
NEW:
Mathematical notation in RFCs provides an option to replace existing practices
for conveying mathematical content. Though some simpler uses of math can be
represented using inline text, native support for mathematical notation can
provide a superior replacement for text, Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), or
ASCII art. In HTML, native support for math can then be used in place of these
alternatives. Other publication formats may use the best solution available for
displaying math.
This is a little shorter, and I hope it accurately conveys the conclusions from
this thread, which is to say that text can work, but math can be superior. All
the text about the necessary exercise of judgment can be deferred to the
concrete policy parts.
Brian, Martin (D), WDYT?
Yes, I think that is even better, and removing the {{guidance}} citation is a
good idea. The document is short enough that it can be read without needing
internal pointers.
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
