Bob Braden wrote:
*>
*> Bob Braden wrote:
*>
*> > *>
*> > *> > It just struck me as odd that people were grousing about ASCII's
*> > *> appearance when PDF is available.
*> > *>
*> > *> People will stop complaining when the ASCII version is allowed to sa
*> > *> "see diagram in the PDF version".
*> > *>
*> > *> Y(J)S
*> > *>
*> >
*> > Huh? That has always been allowed. What am I missing?
*>
*> Please can we be quite clear on this - for the record:
*>
*> I can include a normative diagram in the .pdf version of an RFC
*> (that is too complex to produce in ASCII art), and say in the
*> normative text of the ASCII version the diagram you need to
*> implement this protocol is in the .pdf version of this RFC?
No, the .ps/.pdf is not allowed to be normative.
Which is the point that I was making and Yaakov summarized
so succinctly.
We need to change the publication process so that we can move away
from 1960's improvisations to clear diagrams using modern
techniques. Anything less leaves us without the ability to
describe protocols using the clearest methods currently
available.
- Stewart
Bob Braden
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf