Hi, just wanted to bump this to see if we have any more issues to iron out. Here's the diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-editorial-rswg-svgsinrfcs-01
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 7:55 PM Alexis Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > Since we have moved the discussion about normative info in imagery to > rfc-interest [1], I am hoping that this new draft will be ready for WG Last > Call, but let's find out if we have other issues to address. > > New draft: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-editorial-rswg-svgsinrfcs/01/ > > Changes from last draft: > The first two policy requirements now read: > > - SVGs may be included in RFCs to help explain a concept more clearly, but > should not be the only representation of that concept. A good faith effort > should be made to assure that descriptions of concepts - which might > include protocols, formats, or system architectures - are fully represented > in the text of the RFC. At minimum, SVGs should be consistent with the text. > - SVGs must remain static after publication of the RFC, so there may be > interactive, multimedia, or other elements that cannot be included in SVG > diagrams. > > Any other issues to discuss? > > Alexis > > [1] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/QKmVJB0bzREMBq1A8w4kNf4Gvr8/ >
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
