This works for me. Regards Brian Carpenter
On 17-May-25 08:13, Alexis Rossi wrote:
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 <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] <mailto:[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/ <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/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/QKmVJB0bzREMBq1A8w4kNf4Gvr8/>
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
