Re: A draft for WEIRD discussion...

Burke Chris-CCB007 wrote:

>  I believe that we need to move IETF content onto the Web,
> and use real line drawings and graphics, to reach this audience.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, especially the use of drawings and graphics.

The following, from your draft, are especially appropriate, IMO.

      "It can now be argued that the text-only RFC format is, itself,
      a source of cultural bias in the dissemination of information about the
      internet: a cultural bias toward people who know what a PDP-11 is.
      While not in possession of hard data, the author argues that relatively
      few who today consider themselves internet users have ever used a "text
      editor" or have access to a "text printer". The abundance of FAQs
      [MARSHALL99] [SQUARE96] written to explain the emoticons :-) used in
      e-mail illustrate the difficulty that end-users have with use of
      typewriter graphics to convey "images". The ability to render a 256
      color bitmap is as pervasive on today's computers as was the ability to
      render text on a VT100 when current RFC rules were drafted."

      "The author believes that a restricted subset of HTML, including support
for bit-mapped
      graphics images, is a good starting point."

This sounds about right. Certainly bit-mapped images are now universal.

OTOH,  I think the matter of using links in RFCs in HTML needs to be very
carefully considered.

The "requirements" section of your draft seems quite adequate. Can't think of a
thing to add, except possibly a requirement relating to the editors, for
example that the format(s) employed be standardized and that they be accessible
to all members of the working groups concerned with editing them.