Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> I was a bit surprised by Martin Thomson's reply because I don't think I
> have ever seen it written that ASCII art is non-normative. It's not in
> the style guide as far as I can see. RFC 2360 describes packet diagrams
> but doesn't clarify their status, and does not state that a textual
> packet description is *required*:
Reading this comment, I thought it meant that the SVG was normative, which
really confused me.
But, now, understanding Russ Housley's comments, my understanding is that the
ASCII art (and no diagrams) can not be used to put normative statements in.
I think that the packet diagrams *are* normative as to the structure of the
packet structure. But that we should never put BCP14 language in the diagram.
{And, over in mastodon-land, images without ALT-text get criticized}
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
