[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format
stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Apr 17 19:03:33 PDT 2012
On 4/17/12 4:19 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.
To expand upon that statement, I must admit to being concerned about
people wanting to include the kinds of fancy graphics one often finds in
whitepapers and presentations. Perhaps the answer to that concern is
"exercise some self-control"...
More information about the rfc-interest