[rfc-i] discussion about artwork
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Tue Feb 18 09:52:06 PST 2014
On 2/18/14 12:27 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-02-18 17:44, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> 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>
>>>> 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.
> The ASCII art will be just a fallback and not be normative.
The art in some sense is never normative, because it is the text that
contains normative (MUST) statements. But presumably the text can
contain normative statements that *refer* to diagrams that are integral
to the requirement. Are you saying that someone attempting to understand
the normative aspects of the draft could be *required* to view some
non-plaintext format? Of must the document be fully understandable
without reference to the diagrams?
More information about the rfc-interest