[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format

Peter Saint-Andre 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:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability/

> 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.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list