Hi,
At the risk of causing my mail box to be filled with flames...
I want to draw your attention to the fact that the first of the 2 Abfab
sessions (Monday 1510-1610 Abfab I, Karlin I) will be dedicated to the
overall architecture, example use cases and current implementation
status. So if yo
Russ, all,
Another proposal as for your document. So, it fails to mention what are
the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to
Historic. Therefore, I propose the following text:
6. Procedures for Reclassification of Standards Track RFCs as
Historic Documents
Under s
As far as I can tell, your proposal does not match the meaning we use
for Historic.
More importantly, there does not seem to be a problem that needs to be
addressed in this area.
Most importantly, if there is a problem, it should in my opinion be
addressed separately from the topic of this draft
24.03.2011 17:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
As far as I can tell, your proposal does not match the meaning we use
for Historic.
More importantly, there does not seem to be a problem that needs to be
addressed in this area.
Most importantly, if there is a problem, it should in my opinion be
address
On 3/24/2011 4:49 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:>
Another proposal as for your document. So, it fails to mention what are
the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to Historic.
Generally, the document tries to limit itself to discussion of what it changes.
There are no chan
On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 3/24/2011 4:49 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:>
Another proposal as for your document. So, it fails to mention what are
the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to Historic.
>
>
> Generally, the document trie
> I can't escape the feeling that this discussion of using markup language
> editing to produce RFCs, is a bit upside down.
> I'm much more concerned with draft writers having to deal with markup
> syntax than I am about drafters trying to put a page break in a sensible
> location, or format their
Ned,
On 11-03-24 9:48 PM, "Ned Freed" wrote:
>> I can't escape the feeling that this discussion of using markup language
>> editing to produce RFCs, is a bit upside down.
>
>> I'm much more concerned with draft writers having to deal with markup
>> syntax than I am about drafters trying to put a
> But you are probably pretty experienced user and you probably spent some
> time setting up your environment to get where you are.
The answer is no to both. When I first started using xml2rfc I don't think I
had written a single line of XML. As for setting up the editing environment, I
installed
Agreed.
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3/24/2011 4:49 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:>
> Another proposal as for your document. So, it fails to mention what are
> the procedures for reclassification of S
>I believe having to deal with markup syntax poses a significant
>barrier to those not as experienced as you.
>From long experience, I can assure you that whatever you are used to
seems obvious and natural, and whatever you aren't seems strange and
difficult. I think nroff is swell, having been u
Total of 41 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Mar 25 00:53:02 EDT 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.32% |3 | 7.21% |22774 | ste...@aaa-sec.com
7.32% |3 | 7.09% |22391 | evniki...@gmail
12 matches
Mail list logo
