[rfc-i] Reasons for going beyond ASCII art

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 16:40:23 PDT 2012

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 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.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list