John, Stewart and others, I believe some might have taken my previous note more personally than intended, as well as John's. As also made clear by John below, we both looked at this with a significantly longer time-perspective than just the last weeks or months, as these issues have been brought up many times before. I am sorry if someone felt insulted, that was for sure not the intent. It is good that we now have discussions trying to figure out actual cases when more graphics are *really* needed, then we might actually get out of these discussions with some new conclusions and agreements that can guide us on the way forward. Cheers, /L-E ----Original Message---- From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] Sent: den 12 januari 2006 17:41 To: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB); Stewart Bryant Cc: Ash, Gerald R \\\\\(Jerry\\\\\); ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: PDF, Postscript, and "normative" versions (was: Re: Baby Steps (was RE: Alternative formats for IDs)) > --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