My reasoning is very simple:
If the ASCII were that unreasonable, and if producing PDF is
practical, then I would expect some folks to choose to produce the
PDF even if it is not normative. A few folks have done so. VERY few.
I was prompted to look at this aspect of the question by attempting
to draw a conclusion about the evidence suggested for evaluating the
experiment. I found the suggested evaluation criteria awkward. And
when I asked myself what would constitute reasonable criteria, it
seemed to me that the existing evidence was relevant.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 08:53 AM 6/16/2006, Yaakov Stein wrote:
> 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.
I don't understand the logic here.
Of course there are very few PDFs, since they are not normative
and you have to do all the ASCII work anyway.
Face with this requirement, people have several options
1) write partial and/or hard to understand descriptions
2) publish elsewhere
3) patent the ideas and charge us for them
(it says something about our process if a Government bureaucracy
that insists on archaic procedures can handle figures and equations
better than we can)
4) give up.
Y(J)S
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf