John,
The advantage of using PDF is that we already use it, for both
drafts and RFCs, and have a lot of experience using it. For
most people it seems to work just fine. IMO PDF is our best
shot in IETF at solving the graphics and equations issues
raised in the draft.
Good. I actually agree, albeit very tentatively, that it is our
best shot. But I believe that saying "PDF" isn't adequate and
that a lot of work has to be done and specified before we are
able to use it as a normative or exclusive form for archival RFC
documents.
...
Note 1: I believe that constraints are imposed on _any_
normative publication format for the IETF by the way we use
these documents. In particular, I believe that for files
containing the text of the specifications, searchability and
extractability are absolutely critical. One thing almost all
of those of us who have used PDF know is that some files have
those properties while others, often referred to as PDF image
files, do not. As soon as one gets to "need to be able to
search", then it is necessary to profile PDF so that the right
sorts of files appear. And, as I think Bob Braden pointed out,
one also has to have the tools in place to verify that.
It is reasonable for you to disagree with the main premise of
the above paragraph, i.e., you may believe that we can dispense
with searching and extraction. If so, I would encourage you to
say that, since it would make the PDF profiling problem much
easier. My personal guess is that you would find it quite hard
to sell to the IETF community, but that is just a guess.
Of course I believe that searching and extraction from PDF is highly
desirable. However I think that is probably not easy, and it's likely
that most people can't generate such searchable/extractable PDF files.
I also doubt that searchable/extractable PDF is the secret sauce that
will suddenly lead to agreement on this list. Besides the beatings
administered RE the proposed experiment, we've seen the usual myriad
proposals all over again. Based on these discussions, it's hard to see
how any way forward other than "do nothing" will fly. Hopefully the
IESG, in spite of the discussions, will propose a viable way forward.
Note 2: Unlike some others on the IETF list, I recognize the
importance of having illustrations in better-than-ASCII forms.
We may disagree on how often it is important, or even on whether
"important" should be a criterion or the criterion should be
closer to "convenience". I am nonetheless very sympathetic to
the arguments that fancy illustrations often hide fuzzy thinking
while the discipline of producing ASCII line art tends to
clarify thinking and encourage simplicity in design. Perhaps as
a result of those possible disagreement, we might disagree on
the relevance of ASCII versions of text and ASCII approximations
to the more advanced, image-type, illustrations. But we at
least share the belief that there is a problem in this area that
should be solved. I am not positive that even that position has
IETF community consensus.
It's good that a key person such as yourself sees a problem that needs
solving. Hopefully we'll find a way forward to solve the problem.
Thanks,
Regards,
Jerry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf