[rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11

John C Klensin john at jck.com
Wed Mar 21 17:01:02 PDT 2012

--On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 15:38:01 -0700 Tim Bray
<tbray at textuality.com> wrote:

> RFCs don't have images and the CSS can easily be made
> self-contained.
> HTML also easily allows for metadata in the document header.
> So while there may be other issues to chew over,
> self-containment isn't one of them.


Others have said bits of this, but...

For many of us, the main rationale for thinking about other
formats is to get additional capability, e.g., to move beyond
ASCII art to formats that permit more rendering details and
utility.  There are RFCs today that _do_ contain images (in
specially-prepared Postscript and/or PDF versions) but using
those approaches for the archival document has involved
rarely-exercised exception mechanisms.

FWIW, I call people's attention to a recently-re-released
version of an old proposal for handling images
(draft-rfc-image-files-03).  It clearly violates the
"self-contained" rule, but does try to address that particular
extended capabilities issue.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list