[rfc-i] Text no longer definitive (was Re: Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2)
nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Feb 18 12:33:59 PST 2014
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On 2/18/14 2:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> The words make sense, but somehow I'd like to see a worked example of
>> *necessarily* normative artwork, and whether it is canonical as ASCII
>> art or as SVG.
> The problem I can see most easily is where it is text that is normative, but
> the text can't be understood unambiguously without viewing the diagram.
That's a good point. I think we'll have to handle such cases on a
case-by-case basis. Hopefully there won't be too many, and when we
run into one, hopefully the editors can wordsmith to avoid the issue.
More information about the rfc-interest