On Jul 2, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 10:19 PM -0700 7/1/09, Douglas Otis wrote:
for wanting more than just plain text documents is to permit
inclusion of charts, graphs, and tables, for a visual society
It seems to me that where this discussion has faltered before is
on whether this is, in fact, a requirement.
You are exactly correct, and I can recall several interminable
discussions of this.
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.)
Regards
Marshall
In the past, multiple
people have argued that switching to a mode in which understanding
the figures is necessary to understanding the protocol would
be a step away from clarity, searchability, and inclusiveness.
We have agreed to do it in some places in the past, but I
believe there has been no previous rough consensus that it
should be the default.
If we are going to re-run this discussion, can we first check
on the consensus on this requirement? If we don't agree
here, the chance of this run concluding seems no better than
any of the previous runs at the problem. The discussion
just fragments into tool use, printer capabilities, and various
distractions.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
CEO / AmericaFree.TV
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf