[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Apr 18 05:22:10 PDT 2012
On 4/18/12 1:00 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 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?
Well, for one, we have decades of experience with rooting out complexity
and lack of clarity (etc.) in text. We have a lot less experience with
rooting out complexity and lack of clarity in figures. That doesn't mean
we can't gain such experience, but the learning process could be painful.
More information about the rfc-interest