[rfc-i] Reasons for going beyond ASCII art
stbryant at cisco.com
Tue Sep 25 08:37:19 PDT 2012
On 25/09/2012 15:41, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) 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
>>> * 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.
I doubt that we will publish much that needs screen calibration.
More information about the rfc-interest