[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Apr 23 09:26:52 PDT 2012


On 4/23/12 1:01 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2012/04/18 21:22, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 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"...
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>> We have a review process that roots out unnecessary complexity in
>>> text, why would it not root out unnecessary complexity in the figs?
>>
>> Hi Stewart,
>>
>> 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.
> 
> What does in mean to "root out complexity and lack of clarity" for text?
> It means you read it, you think about it, you try to ask questions,
> ideally, you try to implement it. If any of this fails, you complain.

OLD
What does in mean to "root out complexity and lack of clarity" for text?
It means you read it, you think about it, you try to ask questions,
ideally, you try to implement it. If any of this fails, you complain.

NEW
What does in mean to "root out complexity and lack of clarity" for text?
It means you read it, you think about it, you try to ask questions,
ideally, you try to implement it. It also means that you send modified
text so that people can compare the old to the new, view the diff side
by side, etc. If any of this fails, you complain.

> So what does the above mean for graphics? Just about the same, except
> that we don't use "read" when we look at graphics, but that's a detail.
> Otherwise, the activities are quite similar. So I don't think there will
> be such a big problem. In other words, our ability to detect, and react
> to, complexity and inconsistency isn't really that much text-bound.

It's difficult to do a diff on binary formats. If we were to settle on
SVG, comparison would be easier.

> To be clear, I agree that "complex graphics" or "fancy graphics" is the
> wrong word, and that we don't need the stuff that one finds in
> whitepapers and presentations. But on the other hand, ruling out
> graphics from the start because some of them are bad seems a bad idea.
> There's not a (quantitatively) large need for graphics or formulae in
> the same way that there's not a (quantitatively) large need for
> non-ASCII characters. But for all these, there are cases where it
> clearly helps.

I never said I wanted to rule out any graphics, I said only that I was
concerned. :)

Peter

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




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list