[rfc-i] Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Feb 18 09:27:06 PST 2014
On 2014-02-18 17:44, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 2/18/14 11:28 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> Rather than create diagrams in *both* ascii art and a better format,
>>> I'm likely to continue to stick to ascii.
>> The idea is to have an XML representation for things that you are now
>> doing with ASCII art, such that they can be translated both into an
>> ASCII art diagram _and_ into a higher-resolution diagram, which will
>> probably be more readable, _and_ can also be understood by screen
>> readers. So you would do one thing, and get all three results.
> I agree that would be nice. But it doesn't solve my primary problem with
> ascii art - that it severely limits the the complexity of the diagram
> that can be represented. As long as one of the outputs is still ascii
> art that limitation won't disappear.
The ASCII art will be just a fallback and not be normative.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest