On 14. May 2025, at 00:00, Alexis Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is the community interested in supporting accessibility
Certainly, accessibility is good. > by trying to make sure future RFCs can be fully read and understood without > relying on information in imagery? Well, we have heard several people who think we need to move away from 56 years of practice in which we used ASCII-art and other presentation forms that might be considered imagery (RFC 1305!). I have no problem at all with the “trying” part; we certainly should do this, and I’m trying to do my part (e.g., with CDDL; I’ve also been arguing for including source forms of images in RFCs). I do have a problem with “make sure”, which is a nice wording for what is better known as “prohibition politics". It is hard enough to get an RFC published at this point. We should be working on removing obstacles, not adding them. (And we should be working on getting documents with better readability, accessibility, fewer errors, … Sure.) Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
