This text leaves the style guide alone, and maybe that is as it should be. But my expectations are that the RPC should incorporate a requirement for use of MathML in the general case as and when they are ready to do so, to facilitate consistency for the reader.
Eliot > On 15 Jun 2026, at 06:25, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2026, at 15:14, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> Hello Eliot, >> >>> On 2026-06-13 15:17, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> To me this is good enough for now. I would like to ask one question: >>> under this policy, is the RPC empowered to suggest MathML when it is not >>> present for such short equations/incidental use? >> >> My guess, and preference, would be that they may suggest it, and they >> may use it in the final RFC, if they don't force or pressure the author >> into using it. > > The standard RPC rules apply here. We don't need to say anything here. > > That standard rule being that the RPC need to get approval from authors, but > can escalate to stream management if they believe that there is a > disagreement they think would affect their responsibilities (which largely > mean "if the quality of RFCs would degrade"). We get close to saying > something more about math presentation than is necessary, but I think we're > OK. > > Eliot, I think that this would be more constructive if you answered your own > question: does your reading of the document lead to an answer you are unhappy > with? Your "this is good enough for now" implies otherwise, so I'm inferring > that you are mostly OK, but wanting to point the attention of others at the > same question. > > -- > rswg mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
