Okay, so I believe the suggestion is to change point 5 to this: 5. The RPC is expected to exercise discretion regarding the inclusion of "inline" math in the body of the document or in figures.
Martin Dürst, is that acceptable? Alexis On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 8:13 AM Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 23-Jun-26 17:35, Eliot Lear wrote: > > > > On 23.06.2026 02:51, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > > I'm saying that the statement has no policy value. We've already given the > > RPC discretion. Let them use it, and we will learn more about this with > > some operational experience. > > I agree, the fewer words the better. And in the end, it's the accessibility > criterion that matters most - how does "x + y" best reach a visually impaired > reader? We've already left that to the RPC. > > Brian > -- > 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]
