Closed dericed closed 3 years ago
Hi Dave... I can see this would be neat. It's tricky though, mainly because the start and closing character are identical; I'm worried the parser won't stop searching for the closing ~
, or IOW how does it know it's nested and not just 2 subscripts?
I think I'm closing this with wont-fix. Doing this properly means we need to support math syntax in both markdown and in the resulting RFC. (Ab)using super- and sub-scripts can only get you so far.
Np, as I work for the AUTH48 process I may add in a few more issues. I know some of these are quite niche, so no issue about wont-fix.
[ Quoting @.***> in "Re: [mmarkdown/mmark] nested supers..." ]
Np, as I work for the AUTH48 process I may add in a few more issues. I know some of these are quite niche, so no issue about wont-fix.
Might also be worth exploring math XML with the XML steering group, at least there is syntax available in markdown to allow for this.
Hi, I'm working on proofreading RFC9043 and adding a note as a feature request.
The source document was created via mmark and was then edited in AUTH48. At https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9043.html#figure-15 there's a nested subscript. The AUTH48 editor finalized this expression as
S<sub>i+1,C<sub>i</sub></sub>
or Si+1,Ci.With mmark syntax I think the closest we can get is
S~i+1,C_(i)~
which renders asS<sub>i+1,C_(i)</sub>
or Si+1,C_(i).