This reads funny to me:
5. The RPC is expected to exercise discretion about the inclusion of
how math is presented in "inline" form or figures. In those
contexts, especially for smaller or less complex math, simple
text versions can be superior to full equations.
Perhaps:
5. The RPC is expected to exercise discretion regarding the inclusion
of "inline" math in the body of the document or in figures. Simple
math within text can be superior to full equations.
> On Jun 20, 2026, at 7:39 PM, Alexis Rossi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hopefully the new version is closer:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-editorial-rswg-mathinrfcs/
>
> Dif is here:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-editorial-rswg-mathinrfcs-00&url2=draft-editorial-rswg-mathinrfcs-01&difftype=--html
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 9:02 AM Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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]
>
> --
> 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]
