Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't think I've seen a reminder this week that
jabber room for the XXX WG or BOF is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FYI:
Audio feed info:
http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/
Jabber info:
http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-chat.html
Meeting slides:
https://onsite.ietf.org/publi
I don't think I've seen a reminder this week that
jabber room for the XXX WG or BOF is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
[your premise snipped ;-]
> tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official
> format for RFC, even now after six years?
It's an excellent tool to create real drafts and
RfCs. For "real" read text/plain us-ascii in the
format defined elsewhere (2223bis among others).
Title: What you should wear to tonight's IETF64 Social
-- Posted on behalf of Denise Dziubaniuk --
All,
The IETF Social event is now sold out. Thanks to everyone for your interest.
For those of you with tickets, you can enjoy most of the Aquarium sights from inside. However,
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Anthony G. Atkielski
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
>
> > Because they are your customers.
>
> The reader/author relationship is only very rarely comparable
> to the customer/vendor relationship. For many authors, money
> i
On Nov 8, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
You mean there is nowhere an official statement and we have to guess?
Not that I know of, but I could be wrong.
there are many people desiring some of the word processor features
(track changes, etc...) that are just not found in the xml
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
> Because they are your customers.
The reader/author relationship is only very rarely comparable to
the customer/vendor relationship. For many authors, money is not that
important.
> No, the author can not possibly know the needs of the reader.
The reader can pick
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> I agree, SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics, http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/)
> should be the standard for RFC. True, it is not an IETF standard but
> it is open (for whatever definition of open you choose).
Neither PostScript nor PDF is secret. And you can write software to
p
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Anthony G. Atkielski
>
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
>
> > A bad one, empower the reader.
>
> Why are readers more important than authors?
Because they are your customers.
> > The point of c
Many, many thanks to the Jabber scribes - there've been some
excellent note-takers and it's made it possible to follow along
well from home. The audio has also been excellent, although
it would be a help if more attention were paid to making sure
that folks with mobile mikes (that is to say, the s
Actually quite a lot of people disagree. And this would HARDLY be considered
a MS friendly venue, though clearly as someone mentioned you've got a gripe
with Microsoft and not proprietary standards otherwise you wouldn't have
mentioned PDF.
>
> > On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 18:59:10 +0100, Brian E Ca
I will be stepping down from the AD job in March,
that is, not re-upping as the nomcom does its work now
for TSV and RAI. Doing this service for the IETF
has been a blast but after a number of years,
it's enough service. More importantly, I believe
strongly that the IETF should always grow new p
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:36:55AM -0500,
Andrew Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
> My guess
You mean there is nowhere an official statement and we have to guess?
> is that it is not a trivial matter to convert RFCs submitted in
> other forms into 2629 xml f
On Nov 8, 2005, at 4:26 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
BTW, does anyone who knows IETF and the RFC-editor function better
than I do, can tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official format
for RFC, even now after six years?
My guess is that it is not a trivial matter to convert RFCs submit
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:41:13AM +0100,
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
> Typography is a part of the presentation.
Nobody would object here :-)
> Even in the French early XXth century poestry this was the case
> (cf. Apollinaire).
Not everyo
At 10:24 08/11/2005, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:45:27PM +0100,
Anthony G. Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
> It has been the author's prerogative for thousands of years;
Certainly not, unless the author is also the typographer, w
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:24:51AM -0800,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
> If you try to print out RFCs in Europe
I print RFC all the time (I'm an old dino, used to paper), I live in
France which seems to be in Europe and It Works For Me.
_
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:45:27PM +0100,
Anthony G. Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
> It has been the author's prerogative for thousands of years;
Certainly not, unless the author is also the typographer, which is
uncommon.
> The author is the creator of
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 04:06:23AM +0100,
Anthony G. Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
> when you get into graphics it's hard to insist on text only.
I agree, SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics, http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/)
should be the standard for RFC. True, it
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:24:51AM -0800,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
> The problems with HTML are almost entirely the result of people
> trying to give the author control over the final format which is
> none of the author's beeswax.
BTW,
20 matches
Mail list logo
