Hello Martin, Brian,
On 2025-05-05 09:13, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2025, at 07:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
How would we feel about the following statement, in a hypothetical
draft about ASCII art:
"Normative descriptions of protocols, systems, etc. must be fully
represented in the text of the RFC, and must not be contingent on
comprehension of any ASCII art."
My recollection is that this has been the case for as long as I've been
involved in putting RFCs together.
Do we need an exception to the non-normative rule for cases where the
SVG is directly equivalent to ASCII art for a PDU?
I don't think so. There are some cases where RFCs have escaped into
publication without a textual description of the PDU, but I do not consider
that to be acceptable. It's almost trivial to provide words that describe the
PDU layout at the same time as the field semantics are defined. RFC 791 set a
good example there.
I agree. Occasionally, ASCII art may be slightly more accessible than
SVG, but it will still require a lot of effort for some blind person to
understand it. In case we haven't required text equivalents for ASCII
art, that's something that we should fix.
Regards, Martin.
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
