Updated PR based on the thread so far: Responding to a few points in Paul's message.
>> * 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. > > Those seem reasonable. Please add to the next draft. I believe that the a11y mention is already present. I don't think this needs to be so direct about consistency. > Causing math-related changes for simple math that the authors don't see > until AUTH48 seems bad. [...] > This is an interesting policy question for the RSWG. A stream manager > turns a document over the the RFC Editor that has an equation in SVG, > and the RFC Editor sees that in their ingestion checks. Does the RPC: I disagree here. My experience as an author of a few RFCs is that the RPC already handles this sort of thing very well. Some of the drafts I've put up have made choices about formatting and XML that the RPC have questioned. They do so in a manner that has never been problematic. On the contrary, I have often appreciated how good that work tends to be. Most of those interactions involve the RPC proposing a change to formatting themselves. That change is often far superior to what preceded it. I see this as no different. If someone had generated SVG for an equation and was presented with a clearer, more accessible, and more consistent alternative that used LaTeX/MathML/whatever, then I think many authors would want to verify that the meaning is the same (easy to do, generally) and approve the change. There is far less discretion involved here than there might be for figures. As a one-time patent inventor (in remission, thanks for asking), the patent office often did far more damage to figures in applications. That process was less consultative. Now, the result was still almost invariably better than the input, so I never felt it was problematic, but I want to highlight how good the RPC procedures are already. Ain't broke. Don't fix. And so forth. -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
