[rfc-i] Use of PDF/A for archiving RFC's

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Fri Mar 23 10:39:07 PDT 2012

Speaking as one of the loudest voices for moving from
page-formatted-ASCII to HTML+unicode for RFCs... I totally am not in
favor of any extra effort to include graphics.

I’m pretty convinced that if you can’t how to specify a protocol
cleanly and comprehensibly in written language, graphics aren’t gonna
help you.

Also, maybe it’s just me, but I’ve noticed that in WG debate,
proposals that come equipped with elaborate structure diagrams or
flowcharts or whatever tend to have a higher-than-normal likelihood of
being misinformed, counterproductive, or otherwise just wrong.


On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> On 3/23/12 2:27 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> The picture itself reminds me that having tools that generate things
>> like diagrams from a textual description might be just what we need to
>> bridge from plain text to text + graphics.
> There are a couple of big use cases for ASCII art.  Maybe we could start by
> listing those:
> - Sequence diagrams
> - State transitions
> - Packet descriptions
> - Architecture layers
> I could imagine DSLs like the ones websequencediagrams.com and dot use might
> be helpful both as generation mechanisms as well as alt text.  I do NOT
> think that any of those tools would be required to get started, since the
> status quo with <pre> tags breaks the log jam.  We could write requirements
> that say in order to embed anything graphical you MUST have an alt
> representation that gets the gist of graphics across to a reader with extra
> time or expertise.
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list