I don't think that converting to xml is the same class of work.
There's a great deal of semantic information that should be encoded in
the XML that isn't in the submitted text and doesn't have to be in the
nroff.
Strictly speaking, you are certainly right.
But I lived with nroff for quite
Dave sed:
> Nroff has no current industry penetration.
fwiw - Nroff is on every Mac OSX shipped
it is a shell procedure that fronts groff
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 1/11/06, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. Given that the RFC Editor has the current practice of converting .txt
> submissions to nroff, it is equally reasonable to pursue their changing that
> conversion, to instead be into xml2rfc.
I don't think that converting to xml is the same c
On Thursday, January 12, 2006 08:27:44 PM -0500 "Steven M. Bellovin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeffrey
Hutzelman writes:
It seems like the more efficient approach would be to essentially have
two stages, where the authors first sign off on the result
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 04:22:53PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Maintaining xml2rfc is going to far less fragile than maintaining nroff.
> Nroff has no current industry penetration. XML has quite a lot.
I'd be cautious here.
Equating the XML communities and the xml2rfc communities is not corre
> >It seems like the more efficient approach would be to essentially have two
> >stages, where the authors first sign off on the result of copy-editing, and
> >then on whatever cosmetic changes are needed after the final conversion.
> >
> That assumes that the xml->nroff conversion is always erro
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeffrey Hutzelman
writes:
>
>
>It seems like the more efficient approach would be to essentially have two
>stages, where the authors first sign off on the result of copy-editing, and
>then on whatever cosmetic changes are needed after the final conversion.
>
That
Are you suggesting that the IETF adopt the xml2rfc source as the
normative version of a specification, rather than the .txt (or .pdf)
version?
yes.
as I understand your current operation, the *real* normative version is in
nroff.
i believe that an incremental process of switching to xml2r
*>
*> 2. Given that the RFC Editor has the current practice of converting .txt
*> submissions to nroff, it is equally reasonable to pursue their changing
that
*> conversion, to instead be into xml2rfc.
Dave,
Are you suggesting that the IETF adopt the xml2rfc source as the
normative v
Who is volunteering to maintain xml2rfc and guarantee backwards
compatibility for the next 20 years? (And why should
we believe them?)
Bob Braden
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
John, Stewart and others,
I believe some might have taken my previous note more
personally than intended, as well as John's. As also
made clear by John below, we both looked at this with
a significantly longer time-perspective than just the
last weeks or months, as these issues have been brought
u
On Thursday, January 12, 2006 02:07:29 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bob,
Suppose that we edit the document in XML (we are already
doing this part of the time), do a final nroffing pass to get the
format just right, and then give the author(s) the edited xml,
final .tx
On Thursday, January 12, 2006 08:50:26 AM -0500 Bill Fenner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aaron (for the RFC Editor) asked me to proxy their findings, and I
worked with Charles and Marshall directly instead of going through the
list; perhaps this was a mistake.
I don't think so. In order to
Bob,
Suppose that we edit the document in XML (we are already
doing this part of the time), do a final nroffing pass to get the
format just right, and then give the author(s) the edited xml,
final .txt, and a diff file. (We could easily do this today).
The author(s) change the .xml (or give u
Bob Braden wrote:
...
Now, this may not actually be too bad; most of the changes at the nroff
stage are very cosmetic, and we could use diffs and perhaps other tools
to make it quite easy. OR, we could change the AUTH48 policy to let
the author(s) deal only with the edited xml, without the final
*> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 11 13:53:32 2006
*> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00
autolearn=ham
*>version=3.1.0
*> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:52:31 -0500
*> From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*> To: Bob Braden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PR
On 2006-01-12 14:50 Bill Fenner said the following:
Aaron (for the RFC Editor) asked me to proxy their findings, and I
worked with Charles and Marshall directly instead of going through the
list; perhaps this was a mistake.
The comments from the RFC Editor can be found at
http://rtg.ietf.org/
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)
> > Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the
> observation that,
> > each time the "we really need pictures and fancy formatting
> and need
> > them frequently" argument comes up, the vast
How about a new mailing list or some such?!
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Stewart Bryant writes...
> If linearised formulas were a good idea mathematicians would use them
:)
> Translation to ASCII representation should surely be the final step in
> implementation not something imposed during the understanding and
> description phase.
If symbolic formulas were useful in
On 1/12/06, John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> increasing experience within the IETF and with our style of
> developing and working on documents (not just publishing them)
> tends to cause both patience and respect for the ASCII graphics
> and formats to rise.
I'm surprised folks are ap
--On Thursday, 12 January, 2006 12:28 +0100 "Lars-Erik Jonsson
\\(LU/EAB\\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the observation
>> that, each time the "we really need pictures and fancy
>> formatting and need them frequently" argument comes up, the
>> va
Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) wrote:
Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the observation
that, each time the "we really need pictures and fancy
formatting and need them frequently" argument comes up, the vast
majority of those who make it most strongly are people whose
contributions to t
On 1/10/06, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 9:45 AM -0500 1/10/06, Brian Rosen wrote:
> >Do you have any idea how painful it is to build any kind of product that has
> >good management simply because there is no library of MIBs, with references
> >to documents? There isn't even a LIST
On 1/11/06, Henrik Levkowetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the tools team has not received any feedback or comments from the
> RFC-Editor regarding the xml2rfc tool. If we had, we would have forwarded it
> to the xml2rfc list.
Aaron (for the RFC Editor) asked me to proxy their findings, and I
wor
> Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the observation
> that, each time the "we really need pictures and fancy
> formatting and need them frequently" argument comes up, the vast
> majority of those who make it most strongly are people whose
> contributions to the IETF -- in designer, edi
Bob Braden wrote:
*> The draft has expired so I need to point to an external version. This draft
*> which is looking at the properties of a routing network under conditions of
*> failure would have been much clearer if it could have used mathematical
*> notation rather than ASCIIised equati
John L wrote:
Do we know where the meeting will be yet? I see that registration was
supposed to start today.
I believe it will start in another couple of days.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iet
28 matches
Mail list logo
