[rfc-i] Image support in draft-iab-rfcformatreq-00
sm at resistor.net
Fri Dec 28 10:36:09 PST 2012
I read some of the comments posted about
draft-iab-rfcformatreq-00. 2223bis mentioned that "any alternative
style must meet the same level of clarity, readability, and lack of
ambiguity". The bis draft also mentions diagrams and images based on
a lowest common denominator.
The lowest common dominator defined in the draft is monochrome for
images and UTF-8 for text (I am ignoring metadata). Clarity,
readability and lack of ambiguity have been replaced by
accessibility. In my opinion those (old) properties could be
mentioned in the style guide or the draft. I'll point out that a
determination of what constitutes clear, readable, or unambiguous is
a matter of taste.
Section 3.1 mentions that "RFCs must not change, regardless of
format, once published". That's editorial policy instead of a format
In a sense the larger discussion could be about how to make RFCs more
chic. Today, the discussion might be about supporting images;
tomorrow it will be about color enhancements. That takes us down the
road in setting constraints on the normative parts of a document. I
don't think that it is better; it can only be fodder for controversies.
I'll mention this as a nit. From Section 2.1.3:
"Arguments for continuing the use of discrete pages within RFCs:
* Ease of reference and clear printing; referring to section
numbers is too coarse a method."
I see people referring to page numbers in RFCs. It could be for ease
of reference. I don't think that the pagination makes it easier to
print except on US Letter.
More information about the rfc-interest