On 28-Jan-26 13:48, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I see. Do you think as a matter of process we (RSWG) could simply write down a syntax for math notation and put it in the XML grammar?
That isn't "policy" in my book. I think policy would be: There should be at least one recommended way to embed math notation in XML2RFC, with the RPC making the recommendation(s). Should we not ask the community at large "If you have embedded math(s) in documents, which method worked best for you?" Don't forget that we discussed this topic a few years ago, and MathML seemed to be leading the pack, with LaTeX a close second: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rswg/?gbt=1&index=wZjZ8v8-Eu7c4fWQsvcgRH1SGO8 Brian
-Ekr On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 4:12 PM Martin Thomson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2026, at 10:47, Eric Rescorla wrote: > 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. In those cases, it relates to matters of series policy. We're saying that RFCs need to be able to display math in an accessible and interoperable way. But, as important as it is, the series is only about the artifacts in the series (XML and output formats) not the process that is used to produce those artifacts. That's a line we've walked with "Implementation Guidance" in the past.
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
