[rfc-i] Proposed Program Description for RFC Editor evolution program
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Jan 15 10:40:39 PST 2020
> Yes, I know a clique decided that they only wanted black and white images.
What clique was that again?
Oh yes, I remember, it was the people who bothered to express an opinion on the open mailing list where the format was debated at great length, including the reasons for excluding greyscale and colour.
I have some code for a heuristic to convert greyscale and colour to pure b&w if you want it, although I was hoping it would be added as an option to the normal tool. That said, SVG is a horrible mess when you dig into it and the tools that create it are inconsistent. This topic does need more work but b&w seems to be the least of our problems.
On 15-Jan-20 07:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I have some concerns about the way the process is working with respect to the new format.
> We can in theory include SVG images. Only we can't because the spec as it is written is for a subset of SVG that no existing tool supports. So we do not have SVG images, we have a private spec.
> Yes, I know a clique decided that they only wanted black and white images. But I think that decision should have been made by the IETF as a whole and in full knowledge of the consequence that it would only be possible to include images that were created by hand or with IETF-specific tools.
> I want a process in which it is clear that the IETF is the community that defines policy of that type.
> And of course then we run into all the problems caused by all the silliness that comes from the RFC series not belonging to the IETF only it does only it doesn't because we continue to pretend that we are multiple organizations and one organization.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest