RE: Last Call: 'Proposed Experiment: Normative Format in Addition to ASCII Text' to Experimental RFC (draft-ash-alt-formats)

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

 



As I said in my comments, there is a big difference in the situations.
Currently, if the RFC Editor misses something in the PDF applied corrections, that is unfortunate but not fundamentally significant, in that the text file is normative, not the PDF. With your proposed change, the PDF would be normative, not the text. As such, the degree of care and review required for the PDF document is much higher.

Similarly, the issue of version change and feature set is not central when one is dealing with informative PDF. But becomes critical if the PDF is normative. (It is extremely undesirable for a normative document to be inaccessible.) As such, your persistent comparisons with the current state are at best misleading.

As an example of the necessity of profiling the PDF, at the very least we would want searchable PDF. (Some PDFs with text are searchable, some are not.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 09:44 AM 6/15/2006, Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS wrote:
> As Joel mentions, this experiment will have a negative impact on
> RFC Editor throughput.  Shouldn't the IAB and perhaps the IAD
> have some part in this?

.pdf is allowed now for drafts and RFCs.  There are procedures in place
for .pdf output.  In fact, the proposed experiment uses exactly the same
procedures followed now wrt RFC Editor processing of .pdf output
documents.  As stated in the draft:


_______________________________________________

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]