Re: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
>We propose an experiment based on RFC 3933 allowing, in addition to >ASCII text as a normative input/output format, PDF as an additional >normative output format. There are a lot of different formats called PDF. There are PDF 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. There's the new PDF/A archival profile along with a variety of other industry-specific PDF/x profiles . And there are a whole lot of files produced by alleged PDF generators that don't actually conform to any version of the PDF spec. (Often they depend on non-standard fonts that happened to be installed on the author's computer.) Among valid PDFs, do you include PDFs that are coded to prohibit text extraction? How about PDFs that are just bitmap scans of printed documents, like the PDF versions of some early RFCs from the 1970s? As we all know, one of the reasons that ASCII text has stood the test of time is that its definition is stable and well-understood, so it is at no risk of becoming unreadable due to losing the programs needed to decode it. I think that PDF/A may be well enough defined to be an adequate archival format, but just "PDF" is way too vague. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
John Levine writes: > Among valid PDFs, do you include PDFs that are coded to prohibit text > extraction? How about PDFs that are just bitmap scans of printed > documents, like the PDF versions of some early RFCs from the 1970s? Use the most conservative (and thus probably the earliest) version of PDF. Later versions are designed mostly to make money for Adobe, and they are scarcely needed for documents that contain only formatted text and diagrams. Using an early version of PDF also guarantees that the document can be opened with (almost?) any version of Acrobat Reader or other software. I still use Acrobat 4.x, and I have it set to generate Acrobat 3.x documents, and I've yet to generate any document that requires a more recent version of the software. If you limit yourself to the text and simple artwork that has sufficed for the printed page for the past few centuries, you don't need anything more recent, and you shouldn't be using anything more recent. Be conservative in what you require, and liberal in what you accept. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
>First and foremost, if the input format is PDF, how will the RFC Editor >edit the document? PDF documents are not editable. Well, this particular proposal only makes PDF an output format, but the question is still a good one. Without an editorial process to create the PDFs, it's not much of an experiment. I think I understand many of the issues here, and they don't strike me as being amenable to solution by wiggling the back end. If the goal is to allow prettier output while still maintaining the stability and reusability of plain text, that practically demands an input format that is plain text underneath (for the stability and reusability) but structured enough that it can be converted mechanicically to PDF or whatever. The obvious candidate is an XML profile with some tools to render it into output formats. But now we have to face questions about which version is authoritative (the XML, presumably) and whether the PDF version is any more than a convenience for people who don't like to read XML. I could easily envision a system that archives the XML along with renderings into PDF, HTML, or whatever else people like to read, adding new translators as desired to offer them in whatever trendy new format (podcast?) is popular next. None of this is is a technical stretch. What's hard is making sure the processes work, for the people who write drafts and RFCs, the people who do the editorial work, and the people who use the results. So I have to ask, what part of this problem does an experiment that just permits PDF output solve? R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
> If the goal is to allow prettier output while still maintaining the stability and reusability of plain text, that practically demands an input format that is plain text underneath No, the goal (as stated in the ID) is to enable normative drawings and equations that are not possible or extremely inelegant in plain text. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
Hi, Yaakov, OK, yeah, we got that part. The question is, will the use of this format prevent people from starting with the plain text in an ID? The ID you published is in both txt and pdf, so if someone wanted to start with the plain text in your ID, they could just start with the txt format. If I understood John's question, it was, can we count on having plain text that anyone can start with? (and if I misunderstood John's question, I'm sure he'll post the real one soon!) Thanks, Spencer From: "Yaakov Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "John Levine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:34 AM Subject: RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt If the goal is to allow prettier output while still maintaining the stability and reusability of plain text, that practically demands an input format that is plain text underneath No, the goal (as stated in the ID) is to enable normative drawings and equations that are not possible or extremely inelegant in plain text. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
> OK, yeah, we got that part. The question is, will the use of this format prevent people from starting with the plain text in an ID? The idea is to have normative equations and diagrams. Probably at first people will leave SOME text in the pure ASCII version, but as time goes on and we get used to using diagrams more and more, the text will probably vestigial. > The ID you published is in both txt and pdf, so if someone wanted to start with the plain text in your ID, they could just start with the txt format. Absolutely, although it would be harder for them to understand the point without seeing the real diagrams and equations. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
Yaakov, While I support the general idea behind the experiment advocated in this draft, in fairness, your statement below is just your version of what John said. To see how complex a set of equations might be easily shown in text, see http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/facts/faq04.html. Rocket science, I believe they call it. :-) So your statement boils down to "extremely inelegant" which is just another way to say "uglier." -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> On Behalf Of Yaakov Stein --> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:34 AM --> To: John Levine; ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt --> --> --> > If the goal is to allow prettier output while still --> maintaining the --> stability and reusability of plain text, that practically demands an --> input format that is plain text underneath --> --> No, the goal (as stated in the ID) is to enable normative --> drawings and --> equations that are --> not possible or extremely inelegant in plain text. --> --> Y(J)S --> --> ___ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@ietf.org --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
Eric, The equations you link to are so simple that linearizing them is no problem. However, there are equations somewhat harder to linearize that x = x0 + vt + 1/2 a t^2. As I have said before, a few years back I was attempting to write an ID on packet loss concealment for TDMoIP. After trying a few integral signs and matrices I gave up (and the work was never disclosed to the WG). We put a much simpler equation into the text of the ID, but even is unwieldly in linearized form. Yes, I guess it is always POSSIBLE to write every equation and diagram, e.g. by telling the user to spread out the next 25 pages as a 5 by 5 rectangle and then to stand on a ladder to view the result, but I don't see the point in so doing. At some point "impractical" becomes "impossible for all intents and purposes", and "ugly" becomes "meaningless". Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
