Hi,
below are some (late) last-call comments.
Best regards, Julian
--
1) XML Schema
It seems that the specification normatively requires servers to
implement XML Schema. I'm not sure that this is a good idea, I can
easily imagine scenarios where the server has a built-in hardwired
schema,
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> How about people volunteer to help the effort or how about
>> we fund the RFC Editor to work with the XML2RFC people?
>> Simply having a working group does NOT produce running code.
>> Let's not have committees unless we have an answer to this
>> que
> Cogent arguments against? Very few people came out and
> said that we need nothing beyond ASCII art.
If you ask people whether *we* need nothing more than ASCII,
I would guess most of us would not claim that, since even
if *I* have not had a single case where something beyond
ASCII has been pr
Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) wrote:
Cogent arguments against? Very few people came out and
said that we need nothing beyond ASCII art.
If you ask people whether *we* need nothing more than ASCII,
I would guess most of us would not claim that, since even
if *I* have not had a single case w
Hi -
> From: "Stewart Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 8:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Proposed Experiment: Normative Format in Additionto
> ASCII Text' to Experimental RFC
(draft-ash-alt-formats)
...
> What is unique about the work of the IETF that it does not nee
> As for traditional mathematical notation, I think resorting to it for
> all but the simplest formulas, e.g. "y =(m * x) + b)", often
> does a grave disservice to all readers who are not mathematicians.
"RFC authors MUST NOT use calculus or matrix algebra. Addition and
subtraction MAY be express
Thus spake "Carl Malamud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As for traditional mathematical notation, I think resorting to it for
all but the simplest formulas, e.g. "y =(m * x) + b)", often
does a grave disservice to all readers who are not mathematicians.
"RFC authors MUST NOT use calculus or matrix algebr
On 25-jun-2006, at 21:55, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
IMHO, this would be a very good rule; the IETF is supposedly about
running code, and complex equations that the average programmer
cannot understand without digging up a college math book are
unimplementable in the real world. Pseudocode is f
As an example, this .gif extracted from the Y.1711 OAM protocol
would be quite difficult in ASCII. It would take a lot of words
to describe, which many people would then have to transcribe to
some sort of timing diagram - which then may or may not be
correct.
For those that cannot see the
On 6/25/06, Stewart Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am going to assert that the people that go to the various SDO are all of
approximately the same ability - indeed many IETFers go to more than
one SDO, so there is a sort of existance proof.
I am going to also assert that the work of most o
On Jun 25, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
As an example, this .gif extracted from the Y.1711 OAM protocol
would be quite difficult in ASCII. It would take a lot of words
to describe, which many people would then have to transcribe to
some sort of timing diagram - which then may or may
On 25-jun-2006, at 22:41, Stewart Bryant wrote:
As an example, this .gif extracted from the Y.1711 OAM protocol
would be quite difficult in ASCII.
I'm not surprised, as it contains too much information to be readable
in a 925 pixel wide GIF. I think this supports Stephen's point that
if a
Hi -
> From: "Stewart Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 1:41 PM
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: Last Call: 'Proposed Experiment: Normative Format in
> Additionto ASCII Text' to Experimental RFC
(draft-ash-alt-formats)]
>
> As an exampl
Burger, Eric wrote:
> Very much agreed.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I would have little objection to requiring running code as a test of
> feasibility of a new idea. I would object strongly to an argument that
> just because someone has runn
John R Levine wrote:
>> - partly because it's consuming energy from those who would work on more
>> useful goals if they were chartered, partly because of the need for
>> damage control,
>
> This must be a different group of people from the ones who I find on the
> DKIM list. If we wanted to wo
marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>> I don't know about "narrow community", but I agree that good reviews
>> are essential. ...
>>
>> In my opinion, if the IETF could make it worth someone's while in one
>> way or another to do a thorough review, that would help a lot.
>
> I very much agree with this
16 matches
Mail list logo
