Internet-Draft Mathematical notation in RFCs January 2026
Rossi, et al. Expires 31 July 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-rossi-mathinrfcs-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Authors:
A. Rossi
RFC Series Consulting Editor
M. Thomson
L. Eggert

Mathematical notation in RFCs

Abstract

This document defines policy and allows new technology for the representation of mathematical notation in RFCXML and relevant publication formats. After implementation of this policy, mathematical notation in RFCXML and the HTML publication format will no longer be accepted in Unicode or Scalable Vector Graphics (SVGs).

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://github.com/alexisannerossi/id-mathinrfcs/edit/main/draft-rossi-mathinrfcs-00.md. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rossi-mathinrfcs/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the RSWG Editorial Stream Working Group mailing list (mailto:rswg@rfc-editor.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rswg/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/alexisannerossi/id-mathinrfcs.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 31 July 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This document allows new technology for the representation of mathematical notation in RFCXML and relevant publication formats defined in [RFC9720]. This document also defines policy requirements for the inclusion of mathematical content.

Mathematical notation in RFCs will no longer be accepted in Unicode or Scalable Vector Graphics (SVGs) for RFCXML or the HTML publication format. Other publication formats may use the best solution available for displaying math. This document specifically removes support for displaying math in unicode or SVGs in the HTML publication format as these are not adequately accessible to all readers.

The RFC Publication Center (RPC) is responsible for tooling and implementation decisions regarding this policy. We expect the adoption of this policy to require changes and adaptation during implementation in early documents using this technology.

2. Policy Requirements

The RPC is authorized to make decisions about the representation of mathematical notation for both technical and editorial reasons in order to ensure that published RFCs meet the above policy and to provide consistency across the RFC series. The RPC must document their decisions in a public place, and all changes to tooling or implementation decisions must be widely communicated to the RFC author community using mailing lists or other means.

3. Implementation Guidance

The RPC is expected to solicit community input before making decisions and to publicly explain their reasoning.

Documentation produced by the RPC should describe what technical and editorial constraints apply to the HTML publication format and CSS files.

Where possible, implementation decisions should focus on specifying what is disallowed, rather than attempting to specify exactly what is allowed. These decisions should also consider the authoring process as a significant factor in implementation.

The RPC should periodically review and revise their practices.

4. Security Considerations

This document has no security considerations.

5. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

6. Acknowledgements

This document has greatly benefited from the input of Carsten Bormann who provided significant input on the early draft versions of this document.

7. Informative References

[RFC9720]
Hoffman, P. and H. Flanagan, "RFC Formats and Versions", RFC 9720, DOI 10.17487/RFC9720, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9720>.
[WAI]
W3C, "W3C Accessibility Standards Overview", n.d., <https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/>.

Authors' Addresses

Alexis Rossi
RFC Series Consulting Editor
Martin Thomson
Lars Eggert