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