We don’t have a supported author friendly for a for ID’s. This is really getting ahead of ourselves.
I expect we will agree to support some flavor of markdown at some point, but we’re not there yet. Please consider the environment before reading this message. John Levine, [email protected] > On Jan 31, 2026, at 22:24, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]
