- Original Message -
From: Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
To: Yaakov Stein yaako...@rad.com
Cc: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com; ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 6:07 PM
On 2011-11-26 21:52, Yaakov Stein wrote:
That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and RFC
On 2011-11-29 09:32, t.petch wrote:
...
You will be aware of the recent threads on apps-discuss about MIME types (of
...
Internet Media Types :-)
...
which the text/plain you mention is one) which concluded, AFAICS, that there is
no rationale why a (top level) type should or should not
--On Monday, November 28, 2011 19:20 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
...
I've set the converter ('unoconv', which uses libreoffice) up
to convert to PDF/A, but the converter doesn't always fully
succeed in producing valid PDF/A (also mentioned by Robinson
in one of his
--On Monday, November 28, 2011 21:42 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
One small suggestion, partially prompted by my attempts to
convert PDF and Postscript RFCs to PDF/A: when the converter
cannot or does not succeed in producing valid PDF/A, could
that fact be logged in
- Original Message -
From: Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
To: Yaakov Stein yaako...@rad.com
Cc: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com; ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 6:07 PM
On 2011-11-26 21:52, Yaakov Stein wrote:
That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and
t.petch wrote:
You will be aware of the recent threads on apps-discuss about MIME types
The threads are on PPTX and DOCX, that is, file name extensions,
not MIME types, which demonstrates that MIME was not necessary
and uuencode is just enough.
If this were not true, then I believe that
27, 2011 18:20
To: Yaakov Stein
Cc: Dave Aronson; IETF Discussion
Subject: text/lp [was Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The problem here is that RFC and Internet-Drafts are not plain ASCII. They are
technically in a special
That would work too. I added a third URL that returns
text/plain;format=fixed;line-length=72
http://ietf.implementers.org/fixed/rfc5928.txt
That is the worst option for my two devices.
On both devices the line wraps distort the tables beyond recognition.
Y(J)S
On 2011-11-26 21:52, Yaakov Stein wrote:
That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and RFC 5198-conforming UTF-8.
That wouldn't bother me much, but be careful what you wish form.
What we have been told is that the rationale behind the use of ASCII and
several other formats
is that they will
On 2011-11-27 09:20, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Dave
I agree that we are thinking as content creators, and that is the problem.
The requirement is not that we will be able to write a new document in 50 years
in the same format.
The requirement is that we should be able to read the documents written
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/2011 01:52 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Marc
I opened the link on two different devices,
to see how the tables rendered.
On one (iPod touch with Safari), it worked reasonably.
The only problem was that the table columns were skewed
due
On 2011-11-27 17:20, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The problem here is that RFC and Internet-Drafts are not plain ASCII. They are
technically in a special format that I would call line-printer ready text
file, and ASCII is the encoding, not the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/2011 01:58 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
That would work too. I added a third URL that returns
text/plain;format=fixed;line-length=72
http://ietf.implementers.org/fixed/rfc5928.txt
That is the worst option for my two devices.
On both
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:12:42PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
What's important is that things that *should* work well on small
displays, such a reflowing prose paragraphs, and re-pagination, do
so. This is where text/plain fails big (and HTML does not).
That's more of an attribute of the
On 2011-11-28 18:21, Ted Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:12:42PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
What's important is that things that *should* work well on small
displays, such a reflowing prose paragraphs, and re-pagination, do
so. This is where text/plain fails big (and HTML does not).
Hacking text display applications when HTML was designed for it already and
most RFC's natively generate HTML (xml2rfc), do we really have a problem to
solve?
On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-11-28 18:21, Ted Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:12:42PM +0100,
On 2011-11-28 18:46, Eric Burger wrote:
Hacking text display applications when HTML was designed for it already and
most RFC's natively generate HTML (xml2rfc), do we really have a problem to
solve?
...
If all documents were submitted in xml2rfc format (or something equally
expressive): not
Hi,
I just came across this (very long) thread started by Brian's post, and since
(as Robinson Tryon mentioned in a post already) libreoffice can convert
both .ppt and .pptx to .pdf, I've now set up the tools servers to convert
any .ppt and .pptx to .pdf as soon as they see them.
This means that
On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
It requires a format that does allow reflowing and repagination. HTML does,
PDF/A does, text/plain does not (maybe RFC 2646 would help, maybe not).
text/plain is what we use, and that's a problem that'll need to be solved.
In practice,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
Hi,
I just came across this (very long) thread started by Brian's post, and since
(as Robinson Tryon mentioned in a post already) libreoffice can convert
both .ppt and .pptx to .pdf, I've now set up the tools
On 2011-11-28 19:24, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
It requires a format that does allow reflowing and repagination. HTML does,
PDF/A does, text/plain does not (maybe RFC 2646 would help, maybe not).
text/plain is what we use, and that's a problem
--On Monday, November 28, 2011 18:27 +0100 Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
That's more of an attribute of the text reader than any thing
else. I've had readers that reflow text just fine --- far
better than PDF, at any rate.
It requires a format that does allow reflowing and
Julian Reschke wrote:
So, if we expect people to be able to read our documents in 5 years,
let alone 50, we need to stop using ASCII art.
ASCII arts is just fine.
Just that there there is an awful number of modern software
that is too stupid to display ASCII text with fixed pitch fonts.
On 2011-11-28 20:29, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, November 28, 2011 18:27 +0100 Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
That's more of an attribute of the text reader than any thing
else. I've had readers that reflow text just fine --- far
better than PDF, at any rate.
It
On 2011-11-28 20:44, Martin Rex wrote:
...
The real problem is buggy software for displaying on small displays.
Reflowing ASCII is *no* problem whenever ASCII text is reflowable
at all. It can be done in 1-2 KByte of code. Displaying HTML or XML
But our format currently is not reflowable.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:03:02PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
No, it just shows that our format has been optimized for a use case
which almost nobody cares about anymore.
Perhaps because no one actually reads RFC's on these small devices,
and so we've been trolled by a master into worrying
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 15:26, Ted Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
plain text works just *fine* on a desktop machines, which is what
implementors of network protocols generally use.
That's what I've been trying to tell them -- but some people love to
engineer so much that they don't know when to
Hi John,
On 2011-11-28 19:40 John C Klensin said the following:
--On Monday, November 28, 2011 19:20 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
...
I've set the converter ('unoconv', which uses libreoffice) up
to convert to PDF/A, but the converter doesn't always fully
succeed
Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-11-28 20:44, Martin Rex wrote:
...
The real problem is buggy software for displaying on small displays.
Reflowing ASCII is *no* problem whenever ASCII text is reflowable
at all. It can be done in 1-2 KByte of code. Displaying HTML or XML
But our format
Henrik,
On 2011-11-29 07:20, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Hi,
I just came across this (very long) thread started by Brian's post,
I apologise to everybody. I should know better by now than to mention
anything to do with document format on this list.
and since
(as Robinson Tryon mentioned in a
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
The validator tells me that the files which validate does so against
both A-1a and A-1b, which if I understand things correctly indicate
that it's 1a-compliant, since 1b is a subset of 1a.
For those who like to
Hi John,
On 2011-11-28 21:50 John C Klensin said the following:
--On Monday, November 28, 2011 21:42 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
One small suggestion, partially prompted by my attempts to
convert PDF and Postscript RFCs to PDF/A: when the converter
cannot or does
On 2011-11-28 22:09, Martin Rex wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-11-28 20:44, Martin Rex wrote:
...
The real problem is buggy software for displaying on small displays.
Reflowing ASCII is *no* problem whenever ASCII text is reflowable
at all. It can be done in 1-2 KByte of code.
Perhaps because no one actually reads RFC's on these small devices,
and so we've been trolled by a master into worrying about a use case
which isn't really a problem.
I, for one, regularly (attempt to) read RFCs and other standards on small
devices.
I do this because I have stopped shlepping
-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Aronson
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 00:10
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 15:52, Yaakov Stein yaako...@rad.com wrote:
ASCII is already
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Aronson
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 00:10
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 15:52, Yaakov Stein yaako...@rad.com wrote:
ASCII is already unreadable on many popular devices
Oh
[mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Aronson
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 00:10
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 15:52, Yaakov Stein yaako...@rad.com wrote:
ASCII is already unreadable on many popular devices
--On Sunday, November 27, 2011 08:20 -0800 Marc Petit-Huguenin
petit...@acm.org wrote:
The problem here is that RFC and Internet-Drafts are not plain
ASCII. They are technically in a special format that I would
call line-printer ready text file, and ASCII is the
encoding, not the format.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 03:20, Yaakov Stein yaako...@rad.com wrote:
The requirement is not that we will be able to write a new document in 50
years in the same format.
The requirement is that we should be able to read the documents written 50
years before.
The problem about ASCII art is
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 08:17, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
Naah. We should update the 72-character ASCII limit to 40-characters. Not
only will that work for all of these mobile devices, it will work on a
TRS-80, too.
But that's still too big for even present-day iPod
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/27/2011 10:36 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, November 27, 2011 08:20 -0800 Marc Petit-Huguenin
petit...@acm.org wrote:
The problem here is that RFC and Internet-Drafts are not plain
ASCII. They are technically in a special
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/27/2011 11:20 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
On 11/27/2011 10:36 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, November 27, 2011 08:20 -0800 Marc Petit-Huguenin
petit...@acm.org wrote:
The problem here is that RFC and Internet-Drafts are not
--On Sunday, November 27, 2011 11:20 -0800 Marc Petit-Huguenin
petit...@acm.org wrote:
On 11/27/2011 10:36 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, November 27, 2011 08:20 -0800 Marc Petit-Huguenin
petit...@acm.org wrote:
The problem here is that RFC and Internet-Drafts are not
plain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/27/2011 11:38 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, November 27, 2011 11:20 -0800 Marc Petit-Huguenin
petit...@acm.org wrote:
On 11/27/2011 10:36 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, November 27, 2011 08:20 -0800 Marc
On 27 November 2011 20:38, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
I'm willing to write up either an extension/update to RFC3676 or
a new subtype if there is enough expression of interest (not
just the two of us) to indicate that such a proposal would be
likely to go somewhere.
As Gmail web
- Original Message -
From: Michel Py mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
To: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com; John Levine
jo...@iecc.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:09 AM
I think all of you guys are getting a little too serious about this
thing.
--On Saturday, November 26, 2011 12:11 +0100 t.petch
daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
Could we also say 'No' to .docx, another incomprehensible
format designed to persuade us to take time out, spend money
and upgrade all and sundry?
I notice some ADs/WG chairs using this and while it gets
On 11/26/11 11:43 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, November 26, 2011 12:11 +0100 t.petch
daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
Could we also say 'No' to .docx, another incomprehensible
format designed to persuade us to take time out, spend money
and upgrade all and sundry?
I notice
FWIW, I think that, if we are going to start banning proprietary
formats, it makes lots more sense to ban _all_ proprietary formats,
not just picking and choosing among proprietary formats that are,
e.g., more recent or less frequently reverse-engineered than others.
So, yes, let's ban pptx,
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:11 AM, t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
I notice some ADs/WG chairs using this and while it gets converted to good
ole ASCII when it is archived, I would like to be able to read it
earlier in the process.
To allow people to read versions of documents throughout
On 11/26/2011 10:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and RFC 5198-conforming
UTF-8. That wouldn't bother me much, but be careful what you
wish form.
HTML is not on that list?
No doubt it should be, but which version, exactly?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
On 11/26/2011 11:23 AM, John Levine wrote:
I gather that you consider ECMA-376 and ISO/IEC 29500 formats to be
proprietary.
John,
Citing open specs is relevant and probably important, but this being the IETF,
it is always trumped by interoperability concerns.
In this case, we've seen
I gather that you consider ECMA-376 and ISO/IEC 29500 formats to be
proprietary.
In this case, we've seen references to /continuing/ interoperability problems
when trying to use docx.
I wouldn't disagree, but if we mean easy to interoperate, let's say so.
Word 97-2003 format is totally
On 11/26/2011 11:51 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
I gather that you consider ECMA-376 and ISO/IEC 29500 formats to be
proprietary.
In this case, we've seen references to /continuing/ interoperability problems
when trying to use docx.
I wouldn't disagree, but if we mean easy to interoperate,
--On Saturday, November 26, 2011 19:23 + John Levine
jo...@iecc.com wrote:
FWIW, I think that, if we are going to start banning
proprietary formats, it makes lots more sense to ban _all_
proprietary formats, not just picking and choosing among
proprietary formats that are, e.g., more
That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and RFC 5198-conforming UTF-8.
That wouldn't bother me much, but be careful what you wish form.
What we have been told is that the rationale behind the use of ASCII and
several other formats
is that they will remain readable on devices that will be
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 08:52:20PM +, Yaakov Stein wrote:
ASCII is already unreadable on many popular devices
and in a few years will be no better than old versions of word.
I am referring to the fact that more and more people are reading
documents on cell-phones and other small
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 15:52, Yaakov Stein yaako...@rad.com wrote:
ASCII is already unreadable on many popular devices
Oh? For what reason? Sorry, I'm still using an incredibly stupid
phone, so I may be behind the curve on such changes. As far as I've
seen in my limited exposure, any
so where is the web page that tells me for platform x how to convert
my generated pdf, which i have been using as the pub format for
years, into pdf/a? the link under Guidelines for Creating Archival
Quality PDF Files is a broken link.
The Florida Center for Library Automation website on the
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i am still not seeing you have a mac and use all the usual stuff that
produces pdf. to convert that pdf to pdf/a for archival purposes, use
the following app: https://foo.bar/.
randy, playing end user
I haven't researched the
On 11/17/11 4:14 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
PDF/a is something browsers and natively by different OSs that can
directly display. When submitting formats that are not PDF/a, convert
and automatically link to the converted output with a prompt requesting
approval.
On Nov 21, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On 11/17/11 4:14 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
PDF/a is something browsers and natively by different OSs that can
directly display. When submitting formats that are not PDF/a, convert
and automatically link to the converted output with a prompt
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:03 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
This doesn't address strict pdf/a 1.4 compatibility, but this is a more
subtle problem which the ietf cannot realistically expect its presentation
submitters to handle in a consistent manner.
OOO and LibreOffice purport to export
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That was way before IBM ever thought of buying the remains of Lotus.
That makes it sound like an urban rumor to me ... I'm pretty sure that
general awareness of open source as a concept let alone competator an IBM
sales man needed to be concerned about post dates IBM's
On Nov 18, 2011, at 2:03 AM, John Levine wrote:
* - You don't want to get locked into open source, credited to an IBM
salesman
Because once you try an open source mail reader, you'll never want to go back
to Lotus Notes? :-)
-- Ted
___
Ietf
* - You don't want to get locked into open source, credited to an IBM
salesman
Because once you try an open source mail reader, you'll never want to go back
to Lotus Notes? :-)
That was way before IBM ever thought of buying the remains of Lotus.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com,
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, John R. Levine wrote:
* - You don't want to get locked into open source, credited to an IBM
salesman
Because once you try an open source mail reader, you'll never want to go
back to Lotus Notes? :-)
That was way before IBM ever thought of buying the
On 2011-11-19 07:46, David Morris wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, John R. Levine wrote:
* - You don't want to get locked into open source, credited to an IBM
salesman
Because once you try an open source mail reader, you'll never want to go
back to Lotus Notes? :-)
That was way before IBM
Just saying, but if we want to ensure that presentations are readable 50
years from now,
and do not embed some kind of malicious code, we might stick to ASCII text,
right?
There are countless attacks on programs and devices that display ASCII code
(I once heard a talk on bricking vintage
To: Yaakov Stein
Cc: bishop.robin...@gmail.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Plagued by PPTX again
Yaakov Stein wrote:
In the interest of
1) Facilitating work
2) Making its work available to as wide an audience as possible, and
3) Lowering barriers to participation...
Right. We are talking
Hi, Yaakov,
I'm not the right guy to answer this, but I believe the right guy would
say that when we are asked for evidence about prior art, it would be
more helpful if you could actually read the presentations from the
working group meeting where somebody's invention was discussed by other
, November 17, 2011 16:39
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Plagued by PPTX again
Hi, Yaakov,
I'm not the right guy to answer this, but I believe the right guy would
say that when we are asked for evidence about prior art, it would be
more helpful if you could actually read the presentations from
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/16/2011 01:45 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Just saying, but if we want to ensure that presentations are readable 50
years from now, and do not embed some kind of malicious code, we might stick
to ASCII text,
On 11/17/11 9:17 AM, Robinson Tryon wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Melinda Shoremelinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/16/2011 01:45 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Just saying, but if we want to ensure that presentations are readable 50
years from now, and do not embed some kind of
On 17/11/2011 17:17, Robinson Tryon wrote:
If authors take on the responsibility of creating and verifying the
fidelity of exported versions,
There are two directly conflicting issues here:
1. presenters are not going to be able to guarantee strict pdf/a v1.4 output
2. the ietf is not going
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Robinson Tryon wrote:
If authors take on the responsibility of creating and verifying the
fidelity of exported versions, then I think everything will be peachy.
What can we do to encourage this practice?
Start by compensating them for the work required to conform to
I run a fairly large service for reviewing conference submissions, almost all
in PDF, with several ten thousand submissions each year. You'd be amazed how
much broken PDF is out there, produced by all kinds of tools. Older versions of
Microsoft Office and various free PDF conversion tools
Henning == Henning Schulzrinne h...@cs.columbia.edu writes:
Henning I run a fairly large service for reviewing conference
Henning submissions, almost all in PDF, with several ten thousand
Henning submissions each year. You'd be amazed how much broken PDF
Henning is out there,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
having things in PDF to start with seems like a good baby step.
Yes, starting with just a baby step seems like the best way to
tackle this problem. A simple rule could be: At least one of the
provided formats should
Adding a new tool/process is absurd. If you have a solution that actually
works for everyone without adding much to their time burden, test it,
demonstrate it with your own materials, etc.
Are there really presentation programs so lame that they can't export PDFs?
If so, loop back to the
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
John Levine
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 2:16 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Plagued by PPTX again
Adding a new tool/process is absurd. If you have a solution that
actually works
David Morris wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Robinson Tryon wrote:
If authors take on the responsibility of creating and verifying the
fidelity of exported versions, then I think everything will be peachy.
What can we do to encourage this practice?
Start by compensating them for the
On 17/11/2011 22:16, John Levine wrote:
Are there really presentation programs so lame that they can't export PDFs?
Yes, many - but if you're running windows, there is always cutepdf which
acts as a printer driver and you can use it to export pdf from anything.
Or if you use a mac, you can
PDF/a is something browsers and natively by different OSs that can
directly display. When submitting formats that are not PDF/a, convert
and automatically link to the converted output with a prompt requesting
approval.
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000125.shtml
so
This doesn't address strict pdf/a 1.4 compatibility, but this is a more
subtle problem which the ietf cannot realistically expect its presentation
submitters to handle in a consistent manner.
OOO and LibreOffice purport to export PDF/A. I haven't run the
results through a verifier to see how
Yaakov Stein wrote:
In the interest of
1) Facilitating work
2) Making its work available to as wide an audience as possible, and
3) Lowering barriers to participation...
Right. We are talking about presentation slides,
not about something that absolutely has to readable years hence.
On 11/15/11 10:26 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
On 15 November 2011 18:56, Noel Chiappaj...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
Gee, I don't see my OS listed on that page. What do I do know?
Let DuckDuckGo tell you what it knows about Powerpoint viewer ubuntu.
FWIW I like ppt(x) better than pdf,
In May of this year, patches were needed to mitigate ongoing PPT threats.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms11-036
http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2010-2935_CVE-2010-2936.html
Christian Huitema wrote:
In May of this year, patches were needed to mitigate ongoing PPT threats.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms11-036
http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2010-2935_CVE-2010-2936.html
I would not go as far as that,
but forcing a format that is free from active content is probably a good
start...
I used to think that, until somebody showed me how to fuzz a JPEG file. No
active content needed, just a syntax sufficiently complex to allow for coding
mistakes or other
From: Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com
a format that is free from active content is probably a good start...
I used to think that, until somebody showed me how to fuzz a JPEG file.
No active content needed, just a syntax sufficiently complex to allow
for coding
On 11/16/2011 01:45 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Just saying, but if we want to ensure that presentations are readable 50 years
from now, and do not embed some kind of malicious code, we might stick to ASCII
text, right?
Yes, clearly.
It's hard to know what to say about the suggestion that
On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Please can everybody who doesn't upload PDF to the meeting materials page
at least take care to upload PPT instead of PPTX?
As a chair, I convert PPT and PPTX to PDF first, and always upload the
PDF. (And I ask participants to send me PDF
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 15 Nov 2011, at 16:26, Bob Hinden wrote:
+1
The Datatracker does officially support PPTX, so I don't believe it's
unreasonable to use it. If you don't like that policy, I'm not sure where
you would take that up.
It also hadn't
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 15 Nov 2011, at 16:26, Bob Hinden wrote:
+1
The Datatracker does officially support PPTX, so I don't believe it's
unreasonable to use it. If you don't like that policy, I'm not sure where
you would take that up.
It also hadn't
On 2011-11-15 23:13, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 15 Nov 2011, at 16:26, Bob Hinden wrote:
+1
The Datatracker does officially support PPTX, so I don't believe it's
unreasonable to use it. If you don't like that policy, I'm not sure where
you
The Datatracker does officially support PPTX, so I don't believe it's
unreasonable to use it.
By suipport it, you mean accept it and convert it to something
else, a meaning of support with which I'm unfamiliar. I'd say
tolerate. What's worse is that if you post PPT/X, it gets converted
not to
On 15 Nov 2011, at 20:46, Barry Leiba wrote:
By suipport it, you mean accept it and convert it to something
else, a meaning of support with which I'm unfamiliar. I'd say
tolerate.
Well, support may have been a little strong - specifically the meeting
materials page says:
You can only
Should the system reject PPTX files ? If people can't read them, why
are we accepting them ?
Marshall
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Please can everybody who doesn't upload PDF to the meeting materials
On 11/15/2011 9:14 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Should the system reject PPTX files ? If people can't read them, why
are we accepting them ?
Marshall
Because the world has evolved since Office v0 was released unlike the IETF.
PPTX is Office 2007 format and there are formal readers and format
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
