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

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Tue Feb 18 09:59:08 PST 2014

On 2/18/14 12:05 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> To my knowledge UML is lacking in various ways.  I too would like a
> generic schema language that nicely renders into images but is
> machine-readable, human-editable, and can be used for code generation
> and so on.  I'm afraid that such a thing doesn't quite exist at this
> time.

Certainly UML isn't sufficient for *all* diagrams.
(In the same way that ABNF isn't sufficient for all syntax.)

But it would be sufficient for a large percentage of the diagrams in the 
drafts and RFCs I care about. (Most things in RAI.)

If I had any hope of rendering useful UML diagrams in drafts, then I 
would *prefer* not to manually convert them from a UML tool to some 
other drawing tool for incorporation in a draft.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list