Hello Eliot, Russ, others,
On 2026-06-23 00:47, Eliot Lear 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'm satisfied with neither. We have to make clear that it's the form
(e.g. simple "x + y" as opposed to e.g. to some MathML) and not the
complexity of the equation itself (which is chosen by the authors based
on what they have to say). Neither of the above texts makes that
completely clear.
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.
Are you saying that even things as simple as "x + y" could/should be
marked up with MathML? I would clearly disagree. I'd say that it is
policy to not force even the simplest of Mathematical expressions into
complex markup. What's left to the RPC (which can to some extent
delegate to the authors) is where exactly to put the boundary.
Regards, Martin.
Eliot
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 [email protected]
--
rswg mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
--
rswg mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
