[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format
stbryant at cisco.com
Wed Apr 18 00:00:36 PDT 2012
On 18/04/2012 03:03, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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"...
We have a review process that roots out unnecessary complexity in
text, why would it not root out unnecessary complexity in the figs?
More information about the rfc-interest