On 01-Feb-26 15:54, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> said:
1. I'm not opposed to saying that MathML is what needs to go into RFC XML, but
weakly prefer not to.
I think we can say that it's an RPC decision but that MathML is a strong
candidate.
Sure. Perhaps the draft can refer to those two reports.
2. I'm somewhat opposed to saying that LaTeX is a format that authors need to
have available to them. Only really because it's
a little outside of this groups policy scope.
Agreed, but again it can be cited as a strong candidate. As far as I can tell
it is by a large margin the solution most widely
used by mathematicians and scientists (and has been since the 1980s).
I don't think that authoring tools are in the scope of this document. Very few
of us write RFCs directly in XML and we seem to survive. Similarly I doubt many
people will write math expressions directly in MathML.
I agree, but maybe it's a matter of policy to say that there should be a
supported author-friendly format. I won't fight on the barricades for that,
however.
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
