Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
if you feel that 8+3 is a limit we need to consider,
what's your opinion on the naming convention for
internet drafts?
My knowledge about old CD-ROM file system is limited
to "works for me", and I didn't boot a DOS partition
for years (well, once some months ago, but it was no
situation remotely related to reading Internet-Drafts)
As a matter of fact I've been writing CD-ROM drivers (both low level and
filesystems) in a previous live.
Even back then (in the late 90s), there were at least two extensions
(Rockridge and Joliet) that allowed longer filenames, the latter being
supported by Windows 98 and (I guess) everybody else.
But I don't see how potential PDF/A interoperability
messes are necessary for the mere purpose of attaching
figures to RFCs. As far as I can tell it PDF/A would
not work for say "acroreader 3" because it embeds the
relevant fonts. Users of this historic reader could
upgrade to ghostscript, but I've not the faintest idea
if it would allow them to create (not only view) PDF/A.
Creating PDF/A is the key for "open and fair". At one
point John even wrote "author or editor" where I think
he meant "author or reader". But this also stresses
my point: Can everybody *create* PDF/A ? With free
tools on any platform they care about, maybe limited
to "modern" non-mobile platforms of this millennium ?
That's a good question. See, for instance
<http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/trunk/pdfa.html> (FOP would be an
obvious open source choice for producing PDF/a from xml2rfc input).
BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf