[rfc-i] Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Tue Feb 18 08:44:08 PST 2014

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.

> There will likely be diagrams that can only be done by hand, but the hope is that those should be less common than those that can be done automatically.   But if your diagram is too big to fit on a page as ASCII art, it will certainly be easier to read it in the HTML version of the RFC, even if the tool does a good job of chopping it up across pages.

If I have a UML diagram with half a dozen boxes side by side, with 
complex connectors that have labels, then it just isn't going to be 
renderable as text. Breaking it up into multiple "pages" will yield a 
useless result. (IMO the value of such a diagram is its ability to 
represent a lot of information concisely.)

Nevertheless, even with limitation to the complexity that can be 
represented in text, having the diagram rendered in a higher resolution 
would be welcome!


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list