On Jan 29, 2026, at 17:36, Alexis Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 5:31 PM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Given the fairly concrete analysis below, it feels like the draft should >> have an explicit policy for using MathML for artwork that primarily contains >> math. >> >> --Paul Hoffman >> >> > I would prefer not to name a specific technology, as we're focusing on > writing policy here. As technology evolves, I'd like the RPC to be able to > change its guidance based on what best meets our policy recommendations, and > not be chained to a particular tool. Based on the expert input, I would > certainly expect the RPC to favor MathML if this change happens - I just > don't think we should put it in the RFC itself.
OK, that's fair, but the reader of the document as it stands has no idea what the result of the new policy might be. In the same way that it would be good to be explicit about the motivations in the document, it woudl be good to be explicit about the expected outcome of the new policy (the RPC would look at analysis and change the requirements for artwork that primarily contains math). --Paul Hoffman -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
