[rfc-i] Reasons for going beyond ASCII art

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 08:08:23 PDT 2012


On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <
rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:

> On 9/21/12 4:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 21/09/2012 18:58, 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
> description
> >>
> >> * 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.
> >
> > A related point that is not mentioned is whether we have a requirement
> > to support colour or greyscale, or whether we require that an RFC can
> > be correctly printed in monochrome.
>
> Very good point!  Something about this needs to be in the doc.  I think
> opening up to color introduces a rather large set of complications.
> Color blindness and screen calibration issues are the first concerns
> that pop in to my head.  I understand some people will find the diagrams
> that much easier to read if color was involved, but I am not convinced
> the benefit outweighs the difficulties this would introduce.


In general, yes.

But what about a document that is dealing with color?

I would prefer to leave these issues to the good sense of the ADs, IESG and
such.

I find the current document format practically unreadable.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120925/45803100/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list