[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfcformatreq-01

Julian Reschke 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 mailing list