[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Aug 24 03:34:10 PDT 2021

Am 24.08.2021 um 12:29 schrieb tom petch:
> On 23/08/2021 22:27, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Julian Reschke  <julian.reschke at gmx.de> said:
>>>> txt is compact; not as compact as Shannon would allow but I have seen
>>>> pdf in the IETF that are some 50 times the size of the txt version.
>>>> Yes,
>>>> computers get bigger and faster but not that much.
>>> Example? (The only reasons I can think of are either scanned documents,
>>> or documents with lots of graphics not present in the TXT version).
>> For the RFCs published since we switched xml, the total text is 25MB,
>> the html
>> is 59MB, and the PDFs are 120MB.  They're larger but it doesn't seem
>> like a
>> qualitative difference to me.
> John
> The I-D that caught my eye some time ago, but stayed in my mind, was
> draft-mansfield-netmod-uml-to-yang
> which appeared in the repository as a pdf of 2.826Mbyte. Copying the
> text and saving it as such the file is 80kbyte; ok, only a 35-fold
> increase and for an ephemeral I-D not an RFC.
> I have no way of looking into a .pdf to see what has happened.  I know
> for example that an e-mail can grow tenfold when the sender includes the
> entire MS Office style sheet and I assume that similar things are
> possible with .pdf.


That appears to contain bitmap graphics which clearly (:-) are not in
the plain text version.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list