+1 > On Jun 22, 2026, at 11:47 AM, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 22.06.2026 17:13, Russ Housley wrote: >> 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. > I would go one further. I would drop the last sentence. What is or is not > superior is not a policy statement, and I'm not convinced it's provable one > way or the other at this point. > > Eliot > > > >> >>> On Jun 20, 2026, at 7:39 PM, Alexis Rossi <[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[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]> >>> <mailto:[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]> >>>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> rswg mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> -- >>> rswg mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc>
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
