[rfc-i] Use of PDF/A for archiving RFC's
hallam at gmail.com
Sun Mar 25 18:56:29 PDT 2012
The difficulty of reading the diagrams often means that they are misleading.
Ambiguity is ALWAYS a problem in a standard. It means it is a
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 5:17 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> On the graphics themselves, I am really tired of having to read other
>> people's attempts to produce block diagrams in ASCII art. The last
>> piece of ASCII art whose meaning was really clear to me was on a DEC
>> document and titled 'see figure 1'. We certainly need to fix that.
>> Trying to read a cryptographic protocol in ASCII art with superscripts
>> and subscripts is rubbish.
> FWIW, in most cases it's necessary to declare either the text or the diagram
> as the primary reference, i.e., where differences exist (and they often do).
> Since the text is usually the primary reference, IMO the clarity of diagrams
> isn't critical, but AFAICT anything too complex for ASCII is too complex for
> a protocol spec.
More information about the rfc-interest