Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Draft section 8 states:
>
>    Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format
>    must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their
>    content matches plain text format (R143/a).
>
> That would seem to be unnecessary if PostScript/PDF are generated
> automatically (by the Toolset) from the same source used to generate
> text.

The requirement is, of course, necessary (it does not depend on what the
Toolset does or does not; it is driven by IETF needs).

If text and PDF/PS formats are generated automatically (and correctly) by
the Toolset from the same source, then the Toolset effectively validates
that PDF/PS content matches plain text format.

not necessarily - for instance if the source can conditionally generate content depending on the output format.

Good and important point indeed! I will try to include a corresponding informal "hint" into the draft.


which, if you think about it,
is about the only reason we should bother trying to generate multiple
formats from a common source.

Here I disagree because presentation quality matters to humans who read our drafts, but I do not think we should argue about this. It will probably boil down to the definition of "content". Not important...


Thank you,

Alex.



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]