Hiya,

On 28/01/2026 04:14, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2026, at 12:29, Paul Hoffman wrote:
It's a short document, so I doubt I missed it, but: what is the
motivation for prohibiting what works now? It doesn't work "all that
well", but that's true of at least a quarter of RFCXML.

The motivation has a few angles:

* Accessibility.  An SVG drawing of math is only accessible to sighted users 
(conceding that an LLM might be able to transform an image into something 
accessible, but no need for that).

* Consistency.  Equations that are rendered through a single coherent process 
can be more readily processed and rendered consistently.

* Minor stuff like styling is more feasible with something like MathML.

I don't find that motivation sufficient to justify banning what's
used now, when the better/replacement thing is not yet settled. I
think the draft may be controversial if it continues to take that
approach, so I'd encourage the authors to consider backing off from
that.

Cheers,
S.

PS: to be clear, I don't disagree with the bulleted items above.

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to