[rfc-i] Illustrations, graphics, and normative-ness

Larry Masinter masinter at adobe.com
Thu Apr 26 08:50:46 PDT 2012

yes, w3c pubrules, including wcag 2.0. these have more requirements in common with the rfc series than academic publishing.

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

-----Original message-----
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>
Cc: rfc-interest <rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
Sent: Thu, Apr 26, 2012 15:20:14 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Illustrations, graphics, and normative-ness


That is precisely the type of schematic that I would like to see
presented readably. Especially if the schematic is referencing some
academic paper somewhere that uses the same nomenclature.

Talking of which, surely there is some academic style guide we could
crib from somewhere? The folk who are trying to set up open access
peer review publications must have some somewhere.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> Observing that there is a trend of authors and readers of RFCs towards less and less native English speakers the utility of an illustration should not be underestimated. While not normative, illustrations might help preventing misinterpretations.
> Whoa, whoa, whoa. I have been assuming up to this point that we were talking about illustrations and graphics as normative parts of the RFC. It sounds like I made a bad assumption.
> RFC 5996, a standards-track document, has this:
>   The initial exchanges are as follows:
>   Initiator                         Responder
>   -------------------------------------------------------------------
>   HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni  -->
> . . .
>                                <--  HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ]
> I consider that illustration to be normative. If I update the document in the future when there is a non-text graphics format so that this appears with solid lines and arrows, I would expect graphic to be normative.
> Do others agree? Disagree?
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120426/b699fb33/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list