--On Thursday, 12 January, 2006 12:28 +0100 "Lars-Erik Jonsson \\(LU/EAB\\)" <lars-erik.jonsson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the observation >> that, each time the "we really need pictures and fancy >> formatting and need them frequently" argument comes up, the >> vast majority of those who make it most strongly are people >> whose contributions to the IETF -- in designer, editor, or >> other leadership roles-- have been fairly minimal. > > This fascinates me too... > > With experience, I believe most people learn that the strict > ASCII format used for RFC's is actually a strong feature of > our ways of working. When I wrote my first drafts, I also > believed non-ASCII graphics were needed and I made multiple > versions (one TXT and one PS) of each draft, but I do not > waste my time on that anymore since I have learned that I > can manage very well without non-ASCII graphics. While I agree with you, I should stress that the authors of the current proposal have been much more in touch with IETF work and much more active than many of their predecessors. We also owe them thanks for actually preparing a proposal in I-D form rather than simply complaining about our antiquated methods on the mailing list. Most of the point I was trying to make was precisely the one you make, more appropriately, above: increasing experience within the IETF and with our style of developing and working on documents (not just publishing them) tends to cause both patience and respect for the ASCII graphics and formats to rise. Experience from other standards bodies or similar entities that work in different ways may or may not be a good basis for inference. best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf