[rfc-i] Reasons for going beyond ASCII art
hallam at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 12:07:39 PDT 2012
Or how about survey results.
We have experimental RFCs but no way for someone to come back with an RFC
writing up the results with the aid of charts, histograms, etc.
I know that we don't do that now but we should.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Ole Jacobsen <ole at cisco.com> wrote:
> How about the *output* from the "complex equations", I can see a need
> to be able to include something that, say, looks like a sine-wave or
> exponential graph.
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
> Cisco Systems
> Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> E-mail: ole at cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> Skype: organdemo
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > Greetings again. The -00 draft says:
> > =====
> > Arguments in favor of replacing ASCII art with more complex diagrams
> > include:
> > * Given the difficulties in expressing complex equations with
> > common mathematical notation, allowing graphic art would allow
> > equations to be displayed properly.
> > =====
> > People have expressed *many* reasons other than just that one. Off the
> top of my head, others that have been brought up include:
> > * state diagrams with multiple arrows in different directions and labels
> on the lines
> > * protocol flow diagrams where each step needs multiple lines of
> > * scenario descriptions that involve three or more parties with
> communication flows between them
> > In fact, given how few times equations are used in our documents, even
> that one is minor relative to the others that are commonly mentioned.
> > --Paul Hoffman
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest