Stewart Bryand wrote:
Looking at the SOW again, it seems to completely ignore RFC2223.txt
section 1 that says:
"While the primary RFCs is always an ASCII text file, secondary or
alternative versions of RFC may be provided in PostScript. This
decision is motivated by the desire to include diagrams, drawings,
and such in RFCs. PostScript documents (on paper only, so far) are
visually more appealing and have better readability."
and also
much of the text in the SOW is derived from mankin-pub-req. Previous versions
of mankin-pub-req were unclear on whether alternative formats with better
graphics were to be supported. The current version
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-10.txt makes this
explicit by adding the sentence "Supplemental files may also include enhanced
versions of the document containing graphics or sections not presentable in
text format." to section 3.9. My assumption is that future versions of the SOW
will pick this up.
mankin-pub-req also has requirements that the publisher support process change
and process experiments (See 3.20). I believe this would address the desire to
have the publisher work with the IETF to allow new formats should the IETF
decide to do so. These requirements however are not currently reflected in the
SOW.
Stephen Hayes
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf