Fixed font v multiple fonts

Hallam-Baker, Phillip pbaker at verisign.com
Wed Jul 9 06:57:03 CEST 2003


It is also the case that postscript is the only alternative actually
sanctioned. If the rules were interpreted strictly PDF would also be barred.

If postscript, why not HTML? Postscript is a completely proprietary format
that is subject to arbitrary change by a single vendor. It is also an output
only format.


With HTML, or any XML markup I can specify the semantic purpose of a chunk
of text:

<p id="asn1schema">
Put ASN.1 schema here...
</p>


			Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: todd glassey [mailto:todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:07 PM
> To: Keith Moore; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Keith Moore; Brian E Carpenter;
> problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Fixed font v multiple fonts
> 
> 
> My understanding is that PDF Documents require a Text 
> Submittal as well. As
> does PS.
> 
> Todd
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>
> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>
> Cc: <pbaker at verisign.com>; <moore at cs.utk.edu>; 
> <brian at hursley.ibm.com>;
> <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Fixed font v multiple fonts
> 
> 
> > > From my point of view it is almost impossible to 
> accurately compare a
> > > cryptographic algorithm described in the litterature with 
> the alleged
> > > same algorithm in an IETF RFC.
> >
> > last I knew it was still possible to publish RFCs in PostScript, or
> > perhaps even PDF, as an alternate to the ASCII version.  
> I've even had
> > reasonable luck with producing I-Ds in multiple formats 
> from the same
> > revisable source.  it might take a bit of special handling 
> by the RFC
> > editor but the case you cite seems like adequate justification.
> >
> 


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list