Hi, on 2006-06-15 19:52 Joel M. Halpern said the following: > I would also observe that there is significant evidence that there is > not a real problem here. > > It seems to me that if there was a real problem with the graphics, > that folks would be publishing RFCs with PS or PDF forms, even if > those were not normative. > For the thousand RFCs starting with RFC 3000, there are 4 PS and 4 > PDF documents. In total, assuming that those are for different > documents, that is still less than 1% if those RFCs published in that > time period. > > I know some folks are vocal that there is a problem. > But, the evidence suggests otherwise. Oh, *good* point. > In contrast, the evidence suggested for judging the experiment is > going to be very limited, very subjective, and heavily influenced by > the fact that the target are folks who are presumably particularly > interested in a positive outcome. > > This experiment is a bad idea. > I am sorry that this is not "constructive" input. But sometimes the > right answer is "no." > We already have provision for people to publish pretty pictures when > they think that is helpful. > If lots of folks do that, and if we conclude that those PDFs are more > useful than the text documents, then we would have something to discuss. Agreed. Thinking some more about this, the lack of inter-document links seem to be a complaint that I hear much more often than the lack of good graphics support. Regards, Henrik _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf