[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format
stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Apr 17 15:19:04 PDT 2012
On 4/17/12 4:11 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> I observe that several of your baskets include
> " * Need to be able to include complex graphics/equations"
> I think it may not be accurate to conflate these two. There seems
> widespread support for equations. But I’d like to place on the record
> though, that I do *not* support the addition of “complex graphics” to
> the RFC series. We’ve done very well without them and some of us
> think it is actively beneficial to force authors to describe protocols
> in clear English without recourse to pictures.
I tend to agree.
BTW, for a spec that could have benefited from better support for both
equations and graphics, see:
> If my position turns out not to be widely shared, my fallback position
> would be that on your list of requirements, the graphics requirement
> is much lower priority than other things such as diffing, re-use,
> i18n, readability.
That's how I see it, too.
More information about the rfc-interest