[rfc-i] draft-rfc-image-files-03

Paul E. Jones paulej at packetizer.com
Sun Apr 8 15:02:58 PDT 2012


> RFC 2556?

Typo.  Should be 2557.
 
> OSI connectionless transport services on top of UDP Applicability
> Statement for Historic Status
> 
> 
> It may be that there is a fully defined spec somewhere, but what is the
> status and does practice really agree with the spec? Is there any secret
> sauce that should be documented?

That part I do not know.  It's an option if we want a page other than a
plain HTML file.
 
> If the answer to all the above is that we are OK then lets go with this
> option.

Before we go there... can we link to part of an mhtml file from another
document?  Being able to have a hyperlink from one web page to a particular
document and section in another is really powerful.  Just imagine how it
might ease reading cross-referenced sections in another RFC.
 
> All we really need from an archive format is a way to package up all the
> files to make submission easy. It could just as easily be a .zip or a .tar
> or even multiple entries in an HTML form.

tar and zip formats are not going to allow us to link to document sections.

> The only function I see as making an archive format essential is to serve
> as a hub onto which tools can be hooked. So if someone is writing a front
> end to the RFC series or the drafts they only need to generate or process
> one format.

If we include images right in the HMTL document itself (as Joe Hildebrand
suggested), is there a need for a different archive format if we go the HTML
route?

Paul




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list