julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Jan 16 11:15:52 PST 2013
On 2013-01-16 19:22, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> Hello all,
> I've posted a revised I-D for the requirements draft that incorporates
> many of the comments received during the in the IAB Call for Comments.
> My responses to the comments are posted in the Datatracker. The IAB
> will be reviewing this draft and voting on whether the document is
> ready to go out to an IETF last call during their January 30 meeting.
> The general conversations held on this list, while interesting, need to
> be more focused on the draft itself going forward until it is approved.
> It is important that participants focus on the details of the
> requirements document, rather than debating personal preferences. Once
> a decision is posted based on the requirements, we will get in to some
> more implementation discussions.
> If you have any questions, please let me know!
> Heather Flanagan, RSE
I (still) don't get:
> Arguments against allowing for reflowable text:
> * Reflowable text may impact the usability of graphics and tables
> within a document.
Of course a format that allows reflowable text will need handle graphics
and tables so that they display properly. Has anybody proposed a format
that fails to do this?
So it appears this is just an argument against doing reflowable text
*wrong*; nothing that needs to be noted here.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest