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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf