[rfc-i] Image support in draft-iab-rfcformatreq-00

SM sm at resistor.net
Fri Dec 28 10:36:09 PST 2012


Hello,

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readability and lack of ambiguity have been replaced by 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 
requirement.

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.

Regards,
-sm



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list