[rfc-i] verifying where we do/don't have consensus
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Sun Jun 3 03:54:02 PDT 2012
On 31 May 2012, at 17:26 , Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> Consensus NOT reached due to disagreement or lack of discussion
> | Need broader character encoding for author names | **No** |
> [RSE] would note that at least one TLD registrar (AFNIC) is beginning to
> register domain names with diacritical marks and these will eventually
> show up in references and author's addresses; a potential compromise is
> to limit what characters are allowed, such as to the list allowed by DNS
> domain registrars. |
I don't think there is too much pushback against allowing some kind of non-ASCII characters under some circumstances; however, there is much angst about having certain characters under certain circumstances.
I think a proposal from you on what you would allow and on whether ASCII-only alternatives are mandatory or not would go a long way towards rough consensus.
> | Need to be able to include non-ASCII graphics/images | **No** |
> [RSE] graphics, whether ASCII or other, have complications when
> considering resizeability (see small device request) |
Non-normative images are already possible today. I don't think anyone is insisting that that option is taken away. Some people want to make images normative, but that's a small group and I think they'll take better support for images even if they can't be normative as a step in the right direction at this stage.
That just leaves the technical implementation of image support in a new format. My suggestion: support ASCII art (tagged with a font that renders them well), a bitmap format (PNG) and maybe a vector format (SVG?), where each image can be present in one, two or all three formats, where for vector images a bitmap rendering or ASCII version is required because vector support is incomplete.
> | Want broader character encoding for body of document | **No** | |
> | Want the ability to denote protocol examples using the character sets
> those examples support | **No** | |
See author names.
> | Want the ability to semantically tag some document info, at least
> authors' names and references | **No** | |
I think everyone wants this, although some want more of it than others.
> | Want to be able to include equations | **No** | |
I think it would be helpful if the proponents of equations could create an example of how that would work.
Would equations also require greek letters and assorted mathematical symbols in the text, as well as italics? That would be quite a departure from what we have today.
> | Want to be able to tag ownership/source of comments | **No** | |
Not sure what this is.
> | Need to be able to see non-ASCII graphics/images | **No** | |
> | Want intelligent html-style linking within references | **No** | |
Do we disagree on this??
> | Want the RFC to be suitable for small screens/mobile devices |
> **No** | |
I think we have _rough_ consensus.
> | Want a more flexible line length | **No** | |
Anyone seriously against this, assuming the line length is within reason?
> | Want a single document to view (should not have to jump between two
> documents for complete information) | **No** | |
I don't think anyone is against this.
More information about the rfc-interest