Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Jan 16 12:10:44 PST 2013
On 1/16/13 11:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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?
The argument as I understood it was that it is possible for a format
that poorly implements reflowable text to break tables and graphics.
And so the argument was to throw out the whole idea to prevent that from
happening. I do not think it is a good argument, but that's what I
understood and wanted to capture in the text.
> So it appears this is just an argument against doing reflowable text
> *wrong*; nothing that needs to be noted here.
If it hadn't been tied to "it could be done wrong and so we shouldn't do
it at all" I would agree. But I think it was tied to that, and so it
More information about the rfc-interest