Frank Ellermann wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: > >> if you feel that 8+3 is a limit we need to consider, >> what's your opinion on the naming convention for >> internet drafts? > > My knowledge about old CD-ROM file system is limited > to "works for me", and I didn't boot a DOS partition > for years (well, once some months ago, but it was no > situation remotely related to reading Internet-Drafts) As a matter of fact I've been writing CD-ROM drivers (both low level and filesystems) in a previous live. Even back then (in the late 90s), there were at least two extensions (Rockridge and Joliet) that allowed longer filenames, the latter being supported by Windows 98 and (I guess) everybody else. > But I don't see how potential PDF/A interoperability > messes are necessary for the mere purpose of attaching > figures to RFCs. As far as I can tell it PDF/A would > not work for say "acroreader 3" because it embeds the > relevant fonts. Users of this historic reader could > upgrade to ghostscript, but I've not the faintest idea > if it would allow them to create (not only view) PDF/A. > > Creating PDF/A is the key for "open and fair". At one > point John even wrote "author or editor" where I think > he meant "author or reader". But this also stresses > my point: Can everybody *create* PDF/A ? With free > tools on any platform they care about, maybe limited > to "modern" non-mobile platforms of this millennium ? That's a good question. See, for instance <http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/trunk/pdfa.html> (FOP would be an obvious open source choice for producing PDF/a from xml2rfc input). BR, Julian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf