Stewart,
I suspect most people prefer reading documents that contain
diagrams, but anything that limits the complexity of a diagram -
especially for documents most often read on a computer screen - is
a feature, rather than a bug.
If a diagram is included to communicate (rather than obscure)
an idea, then readers should be able to correlate descriptive text
to the diagram - either because the diagram is simple enough that
it is not necessary to keep referring to it, or because the entire
description can be viewed while looking at the diagram.
Sometimes language limitations are a good thing, when they
are tied to specific ways of presenting information.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
--> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
--> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 2:09 PM
--> To: Andrew Sullivan
--> Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)
-->
-->
-->
--> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
-->
--> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 06:03:07PM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote:
--> >
--> >>There is. Lets not reopen the format flame war. However, just for the
--> >>record we DO have .pdf as a format that you can submit Internet Drafts
--> >>and as something that you
--> >
-->
--> However these are not taken as normative, so you have to
--> produce an ASCII equivalent, which fundamentally limits the
--> complexity of any normative diagram.
-->
--> My view is this is a serious restriction in the power of
--> the "language" that we are allowed to use to describe our
--> protocols, but then I am a person that finds it much easier
--> to understand diagrams than text.
-->
--> - Stewart
-->
-->
--> - Stewart
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf