On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 03:00:45PM -0700, Alexis Rossi wrote: > So I think this leads me back to my goal for posting here. Is the community > interested in supporting accessibility by trying to make sure future RFCs > can be fully read and understood without relying on information in imagery? > And thank you for reading this far!
I find it surprising that there are RFCs with normative information in imagery. And I do think that's a problem, that we really should not have any RFCs with normative information in imagery. Even plantuml sources will be more accessible than imagery. We should try to be more formal and precise in prose. And we should use formal specifications languages more, or design ones for our needs. But this last idea is not popular at the IETF. We're not the ITU-T, which charges money for participation and for copies of many of their specs, but which also has very high production values. Nico -- _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
