Thus spake "Carl Malamud" <carl@xxxxxxxxx>
As for traditional mathematical notation, I think resorting to it for
all but the simplest formulas, e.g. "y =(m * x) + b)", often
does a grave disservice to all readers who are not mathematicians.
"RFC authors MUST NOT use calculus or matrix algebra. Addition and
subtraction MAY be expressed as formulas but authors SHOULD NOT
use formulations sufficiently complex to make a reader's head hurt."
IMHO, this would be a very good rule; the IETF is supposedly about running
code, and complex equations that the average programmer cannot understand
without digging up a college math book are unimplementable in the real
world. Pseudocode is far, far more valuable than pretty equations.
IMHO, a direct result of the above is that any math that cannot be described
adequately in ASCII text does not belong in an RFC. This is similar to the
view that diagrams that cannot be represented in ASCII art are too complex
to be meaningful to the reader.
Every time this debate comes around, I am struck by the notion that
normative formats other than ASCII are a solution in search of a problem.
About the only argument I've read to date that makes sense is to allow UTF-8
to access characters that do not exist in ASCII, such as for authors' names
or better line-drawing characters. Everything else seems to fall into the
"our specs aren't as pretty as other SDOs' specs" category.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf