At 12:34 AM +0200 8/26/08, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> An example of a format-neutral URL might be
This proposal takes no changes from the current format for Internet
Drafts or RFCs. It does require that the RFC Editor add some tools
and maintain URLs in a consistent manner, but that is what they are
paid to do. It also avoids the problems that have been listed so far.
Yes. It has to be tuned for the "or more" part of "one or more".
I can't fully parse your meaning, but I think I disagree. The RFC
Editor, on a case-by-case basis, can choose to have one file
containing multiple figures, or multiple files. The important thing
is that the URLs used by the RFC Editor for any art needs to be
long-lived and not tied to the format of the artwork.
E.g., rfc5110.a01 for artwork 1, and so on. Yakuv's idea was
apparently to embed the figures directly where they are used in
formats supporting this, XML, XHTML, or PDF. (For the X-fomats
an "embedding" is of course by reference, no B64 data-URL stunt).
I agree with John, and strongly disagree with Yakov, that agreeing on
a format for text with embedded graphics for the RFC series is still
--Paul Hoffman, Director
Ietf mailing list