Subject: RE: Normative figures

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:53:08 -0500

Stewart,

	You address this to me - though I do not make these rules.

	However, I will do my best to answer your question.  In the
case you pose below, "almost incomprehensible" is the key phrase.
Had you not qualified "incomprehensible", the answer would be no,
at least IMO.

	Moreover, I believe there is evidence to this effect, as
pointed out previously, in the fact that at least one RFC is 
essentially only available in PS and PDF format.

	However, as long as a text version is comprehensible, it
should be the normative version - simply because, however hard
it might be to overcome the difficulty in comprehending it for
the average reader, it is not sufficient to justify making it
absolutely impossible to comprehend for any specific minority
of readers (at least among those "minorities" that are likely
to be required to understand it).  Minorities in this context
inclide anyone who does not have the ability to use the needed
document display tools - either because they do not have them
or because they are otherwise prevented from using them.

	However, as must be apparent from other discussion in 
various related threads, this is only a minority consideration.

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:01 AM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: [email-masked]
--> Subject: Re: Normative figures
--> 
--> 
--> >Yes.  And, if we're talking about wanting to make the figures
--> >normative, I assume we are talking about a specification.  In
--> >that case, it is far more important that the description MUST 
--> >be precise, than it is that it MAY be convenient.
--> >
--> >  
--> >
--> Please can we clarify the existing rules:
--> 
--> For a standards track document is it technically acceptable 
--> to provide:
--> 
--> A .pdf that is complete (but is non-normative under current rules)
--> 
--> plus
--> 
--> An ASCII text in which the background material refers to 
--> figures in the
--> .pdf  but which contains the essential normative statements.
--> 
--> i.e. Is a standards track RFC approvable when it is correct in the 
--> technical
--> sense, even if it is almost incomprehensible without the 
--> text, figures and
--> equations from its non-normative twin.
--> 
--> - Stewart
--> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:45:45 +0100

Eric,
...
> essentially only available in PS and PDF format.

That is an RFC that predates not only RFC 2026 but also its
predecessors, RFC 1602 and 1310. So it doesn't tell us anything
about the current rules.
...
> --> equations from its non-normative twin.

I'd have great difficulty approving such a document for the standards track
under RFC 2026:

       *  A stricter requirement applies to standards-track    *
       *  specifications:  the ASCII text version is the       *
       *  definitive reference, and therefore it must be a     *
       *  complete and accurate specification of the standard, *
       *  including all necessary diagrams and illustrations.  *

I don't think 'almost incomprehensible' would pass this test.
But in practice, incomprehensible diagrams or equations aren't
a problem that I've seen. That's not to deny that (e.g.) PNG
graphics might be easier to read sometimes. I'm wondering about
non-normative graphical and mathematical annexes to normative
documents.

    Brian