[rfc-i] Reasons for going beyond ASCII art
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
> >> * 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
I find the current document format practically unreadable.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest