--On Friday, 22 August, 2008 16:12 -0700 Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On first reading this seems to be an interesting way to go. > > However, is it necessary to call a file full of "figures" an > "image" file? Couldn't we just pick one word throughout? I > vote for "figures" since it seems to match more to the book > publishing metaphore. Thus: > > draft-...-vv.figs.pdf > RFCn/Figures > and some other text changes. > > I also hope that some guidelines for standard ways to > reference a particular figure from the ASCII text will be > developed. Bill, Personal opinions only: I have not polled my esteemed co-author, nor the contributors from the Editorial Board, and we may not agree. My hope is that we can discuss and figure out whether the community likes and will accept the general idea. Your "interesting way to go", even if not conclusive, seems to align with that first step. Beyond that, I'm delighted to quibble, or let others quibble, about terminology in the text, naming conventions for files, packaging of files, side-effects on organization of archives, and probably a range of topics I haven't even thought of yet. As far as I'm concerned, those details are specified in this draft in order to have something specified and to give a clear indication about what needs to be specified. Not doing so risked having a draft that would have been sufficiently vague that we would have risked a debate about what people thought it might say, and those debates are fairly useless. There are some things that might look like details but that are actually rather carefully chosen after exploration of alternatives but these aren't them. Given that, I believe that one set of details of the sort you describe can be easily substituted for another if the community has a strong preference. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf