Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:



To save time, I would suggest adopting the Patent Office rules on Perpetual Motion. People advocating for a change to facilitate figures (or to allow complicated math, such as tensor analysis) should have an existence proof, i.e., a document that requires the change to be published. (A document that left the IETF to be published elsewhere for this reason would also do.)
RFC1305 which states

Note: This document consists of an approximate rendering in ASCII of the PostScript document of the same name. It is provided for convenience and
for use in searches, etc. However, most tables, figures, equations and
captions have not been rendered and the pagination and section headings
are not available.

Yes, I seem to remember this one from before...

However, it was a while ago. You could argue it was one-off. You could also argue that if one document out of every few thousand needs something extra, that should be handled by some waiver process. I have an existence proof of the possibility of such waivers...

What I hear in these discussions can get translated into a lot of "it would be nice" and
little if any "it is essential that".

Changes to existing procedures tend to get driven by "it is essential that," which is my point.
A working group saying that
the existing format restrictions are severely hindering their work would count for a lot here.

Regards
Marshall



- Stewart


Regards
Marshall Eubanks
CEO / AmericaFree.TV



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]