Carl Malamud wrote:
The problem with tightly defining which piece of PDF you will support is that most clients don't give the user choice on what they do. A user gets a "export to PDF" button, but they don't get a "export to PDF/A and make sure all fonts are self-contained and don't include embedded video."
Is this an issue? "Most clients" and "the user" doesn't realistically describe the entity which produces RFCs, do they? Whatever we decide that the RFC editor needs the ability to do, whether it be "export to PDF/A and make sure all fonts are self-contained and don't include embedded video" or "produce clay tablets in cunieform", then we need only ensure that the RFC editor has access to _a_ tool which can do what we decided. Everyone else need merely _read_ what the RFC editor produced. And, "Most clients" can probably do that. Isn't that one of the primary responsibilities of this office, to ensure that, whatever format we decide upon, the RFCs all match the chosen format?
-- Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf