Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!usc!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!sunfedcomm!grapevine!koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com
From: koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Comment on RFC1124 (?)
Message-ID: <34384@grapevine.uucp>
Date: 27 Sep 89 17:06:56 GMT
References: <5446@asylum.SF.CA.US>
Sender: daemon@sunfedcomm
Reply-To: koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Federal, Milpitas, CA
Lines: 21

In article <5446@asylum.SF.CA.US> karl@asylum.SF.CA.US (Karl Auerbach) writes:
>Now, it seems, according to RFC1111, that postscript is OK for RFC's,
>(including postscript that was obviously generated by a word or text
>processor.)
>
>I propose that we ban postscript RFCs.

Agreed.  Apart from really complex diagrams, I don't really see why it's
necessary.  If your RFC needs diagrams, make the necessary PostScript (or
"pic" commands or whatever) a separate entity (rfcxxxx.5?) so your text
will be readable by a wider audience.

For those who like pretty-printed RFCs, though, there should be some way
to get at them in their original uncooked nroff (or TeX, etc.) forms.  I
wouldn't mind having a nice copy of rfcxxxx from my LaserWriter, but I don't
want it at the expense of people who can't view PostScript files.

---
This message is a figment of your imagination.  Any opinions are yours.
Steven Grimm		Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st
sgrimm@sun.com		...!sun!sgrimm