Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

[Marshall Eubanks <tme at americafree.tv>]

On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> > To save time, I would suggest adopting the Patent Office rules on  
> > Perpetual Motion. People advocating for a change to facilitate  
> > figures (or to allow complicated math, such as tensor analysis)  
> > should have an existence proof, i.e., a document that requires the  
> > change to be published. (A document that left the IETF to be  
> > published elsewhere for this reason would also do.)
> RFC1305 which states
>
> Note: This document consists of an approximate rendering in ASCII of  
> the
> PostScript document of the same name. It is provided for convenience  
> and
> for use in searches, etc. However, most tables, figures, equations and
> captions have not been rendered and the pagination and section  
> headings
> are not available.

Yes, I seem to remember this one from before...

However, it was a while ago. You could argue it was one-off. You could  
also argue that if one document out of every
few thousand needs something extra, that should be handled by some  
waiver process. I have an existence proof of the possibility of such  
waivers...

What I hear in these discussions can get translated into a lot of "it  
would be nice" and
little if any "it is essential that".

Changes to existing procedures tend to get driven by "it is essential  
that," which is my point.
A working group saying that
the existing format restrictions are severely hindering their work  
would count for a lot here.

Regards
Marshall

> - Stewart

Regards
Marshall Eubanks
CEO / AmericaFree.TV