[rfc-i] graphics support
stbryant at cisco.com
Fri Apr 20 10:27:36 PDT 2012
On 20/04/2012 17:17, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> We tend to allow those that think in words unlimited scope and
>> complexity to express their thoughts, but constrain those that
>> think in pictures or maths only the most primitive forms of
> Authors shouldn't whine about this kind of stuff, it's their job to make things easy for the reader, not to make things easier for themselves.
I am whining as a reader.
>> The text equivalent of ascii art would be to limit the dictionary
>> to that of 10 year old and the sentence size to something like
>> 120 chars.
> Sounds like a service I know that is pretty popular. :-)
> RFCs are not a means of free artistic expression. They are protocol specifications. If specifying a protocol requires detailed pictures, then we should look for ways to make that possible. But from where I'm sitting, the current system where it's possible to use "real" pictures but only as non-normative parts of an RFC, seems to work pretty well.
.. but in tunnel and virtual network land it does not work so well.
.. it took a lot of work to rewrite the NTP spec in ASCII, we will
probably never know how well that worked because the original, which was
only available in pdf still exists
> On 18 Apr 2012, at 9:00 , Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> We have a review process that roots out unnecessary complexity in
>> text, why would it not root out unnecessary complexity in the figs?
> Pictures are different from text. The skill sets are quite different.
The fundamental drive to apply Ocam's razor still applies
More information about the rfc-interest