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

Larry Masinter masinter at adobe.com
Sun Apr 8 14:30:37 PDT 2012

my presentation at the bof was about use cases and constituents.

for document reviewers and users (who want support on a wide variety of devices with a range of screen sizes) vector art (as supported by pdf and svg) is more legible than pixel art (as png, jpeg, etc) although conversion to device-resolution specific images may be beneficial for some current devices. SVG in utf8 has the advantage that strings can be grepped (although this would be a restricted profile of svg features we might want to require).

images can be rendered from vector art but not vice versa reliably.

device viewing capabilities are changing rapidly... do not design the archive format to optimize for a small subset of current capabilities.

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

-----Original message-----
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej at packetizer.com>
Cc: &apos;RFC Interest&apos; <rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
Sent: Sun, Apr 8, 2012 21:04:03 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-rfc-image-files-03

On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:

> Put this draft into context.  It was submitted before a heck of a lot of
> dialog happened on the mailing list.

Errr, there has been dialog on this list and on ietf-general for over a decade. The named draft was submitted by two people who each have literally decades of experience thinking about the RFC series and proposals on how to change it. That's a lot of context.

>  It was one idea and I'm not sure how
> many others were formally submitted for consideration;

In Paris, Heather asked us *not* to formally submit proposals for a while.

> at the very least we
> should thank the authors for putting forward a formal proposal.

Some of us did that a few years ago when they submitted the -00.

>  Put your
> hatchet away. :-)

...and some of us pulled out out hatchets back then because of similar concerns as Iljitsch.

--Paul Hoffman, who also has published multiple drafts on related topics over the years, some which might be hatchet-worthy

rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120408/941a92ee/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list