On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 3:43 PM Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026, at 10:24, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > The RPC shall define an input format for mathematical notation and > > requirements for enhancing xml2rfc to translate that input format into > > the output format defined in Section XYZ. That input format shall be > > based on pre-existing defined mathematical notation input formats. > > I agree regarding the general sentiment, but I think that this group is > somewhat constrained in terms of what we can mandate as a matter of > policy. The way to thread that needle is to make this a suggestion in the > implementation guidance section and not use "shall", so maybe: > > > The RPC is also advised to consider input formats that will be used to > author documents. > > Any input format will need to be documented and integrated into > authoring tools, > > which will need to be able to generate the different output formats as > needed. > > Reusing established mathematical notation input formats is strongly > recommended. > > (We did discuss this, but failed to write it down. The natural conclusion > here is some variant of LaTeX, but I think we need to stop just short of > mandating that, as you did.) > Why do you think we are precluded from saying "shall"? S 2 uses must a couple of times for matters that seem like they are at a similar altitude. -Ekr
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
