[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfcformatreq-01

Martin Rex mrex at sap.com
Fri Jan 18 13:00:25 PST 2013

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>
> >>> Also when you say monochrome, do you mean greyscale?  It's hard to
> >>> think of a printer or display these days that can't do grey.

AFAIK, the majority of Amazon Kindles have monochrome displays.


Are you thinking about colorful or greyscale images, or about overloading
the meaning of text with color or greyscale?

> > Heather's (non-technical) justification of this being an added drag on
> > RS staff productivity and therefore wanting to punt for now is far
> > more rational.

The problem with anything else than monochrome is that it becomes
much more difficult to achive/retain a common/consistent look for the
document series, it creates new accessibility problems when color
or shades of grey become significant for understanding the specification.

> Yes. I don't think we can ask them to figure which uses of colour or
> greyscale are problematic.

Requiring them to come up with a style guide up front seems premature.
I'd say this bridge should be crossed when we come to it.  There is no
pressing need to use color or greyscale.  For the few authors that
feel a strong urge, an alternative, colorful RFC publication format
has been available in addition to the normative format, and those
authors are free to provide an additionally beefed up version of
the document, where they can try to demonstrate their personally
perceived benefits.

If the alternative format is used more than casually, and demonstrates
significant usefulness beyond personal preferences, a style guide could
be derived from concrete examples that were additionally published in
the alternative format, rather than asking the RFC Editor to predict
what might be useful or worthwhile.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list