, and "normative" versions (was:
Re: Baby Steps (was RE: Alternative formats for IDs))
> --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
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
> 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
*>
*> Under those conditions, our precedents are that you can probably
*> convince the WG/WGchairs/ADs, and eventually the RFC Editor,
*> that a PDF document containing a picture of the Mona Lisa and an
*> ASCII document with
*>
*> _-
*> / \
At 18:49 06/01/2006, Bob Braden wrote:
*>
*> Why not to just to proceed step by step and experiment? Let create an
*> optional non-ascii art RFC-Editor repositories, for images quoted in
*> RFCs. This will not permit non-ASCII art to be normative but will
*> permit non-ASCII art to be
*> >
*> > I just took a quick peek at the RFCs and there does not appear
*> > to be a single example of a version that is not in text format. I
*> > don't know if that is because they are not stored in the same place,
*> > or they are not carried forward as part of the publishin
*>
*> Why not to just to proceed step by step and experiment? Let create an
*> optional non-ascii art RFC-Editor repositories, for images quoted in
*> RFCs. This will not permit non-ASCII art to be normative but will
*> permit non-ASCII art to be _better_ descriptive in a first time.
Ash, Gerald R (Jerry) wrote:
Unless the IESG has changed the rules while I was not looking,
it has been permitted to post I-Ds in PDF in addition to ASCII
for some years.
BUT the pdf is not allowed to be normative.
Right. The ASCII version is the only normative format. Furthermore,
all
Gray, Eric wrote:
Stewart,
You bring up a good point. I have been assuming that - since
IDs can be submitted in multiple formats - that the additional
formats would also become part of the RFC library on publication.
I just took a quick peek at the RFCs and there does not appear
t
We need to get out this ancients vs moderns dispute. Ancients saying
they have no experience of actual need by moderns, and moderns saying
this is because the ancient culture does not permit it.
Is there an objection to quote non-ascii documents hyperlinks? I suppose not.
Why not to just to pr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John C Klensin writes:
>
>
>--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 12:46 -0500 "Gray, Eric"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> I believe - for the record - that Post-Script is also
>> allowed.
>
>It is indeed. And it, as well as PDF, are allowed in RFCs (se
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 17:01 + Stewart Bryant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> I find it interesting that it has not been taken
>> advantage of more often (and, for the record, I'm one of those
>> who has taken advantage of it). When it has been done for
>> artwork purposes, the
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 12:46 -0500 "Gray, Eric"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> I believe - for the record - that Post-Script is also
> allowed.
It is indeed. And it, as well as PDF, are allowed in RFCs (see
earlier note).
As others have noted, an ASCII form is still re
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 13:17 -0500 "Gray, Eric"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stewart,
>
> You bring up a good point. I have been assuming that -
> since IDs can be submitted in multiple formats - that the
> additional formats would also become part of the RFC library
> on public
On Jan 5, 2006, at 11:49, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Ken Raeburn wrote:
Personally, I'm skeptical that we'll find an alternative that
meets our requirements as well, but perhaps we'll wind up with
plain UTF-8 text or something.
How would I encode graphics in UTF-8?
Same as you do in ASCII n
bject: Re: Baby Steps (was RE: Alternative formats for IDs)
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 08:25 -0600 "Ash, Gerald R
\\(Jerry\\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <
); Yaakov Stein; ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: Baby Steps (was RE: Alternative formats for IDs)
-->
-->
-->
--> --On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 08:25 -0600 "Ash, Gerald R
--> \\(Jerry\\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-->
--> > Happy New Year to all!
--&
Jerry,
And this is a déjà vu over and over again as well.
We could - in theory - allow draft versions in any
format an author chooses. It would make quite a mess of
the draft repository and - eventually - the RFC library.
But we need to agree on one or more versions that
> > Unless the IESG has changed the rules while I was not looking,
> > it has been permitted to post I-Ds in PDF in addition to ASCII
> > for some years.
> BUT the pdf is not allowed to be normative.
Right. The ASCII version is the only normative format. Furthermore,
all diagrams, no matter h
Scott W Brim wrote:
For heuristic value ... Do you think there is a correlation between
restricting ourselves to formats which are good for protocol
specifications but not much else, and the skew in our success record
toward problems solved by protocol specifications as opposed to the
really
On 01/05/2006 11:28 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
> Even those of us who are strongly supportive of ASCII as our
> primary base format and those who believe that the effort needed
> to simplify illustrations and diagrams sufficiently that they
> can be accurately represented in ASCII artwork
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 08:25 -0600 "Ash, Gerald R
\\(Jerry\\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Happy New Year to all!
Many thanks to Yaakov for his excellent handling of the list
discussion. I'm not very surprised with the way it has gone.
Déjà vu all
Ken Raeburn wrote:
On Jan 5, 2006, at 09:25, Ash, Gerald R ((Jerry)) wrote:
I'd suggest we try to reach consensus first on the following:
Alternative format(s) for IDs, in addition to ASCII text, should be
allowed.
One requirement/motivation for this change (as set forth in the ID)
is to
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 08:25 -0600 "Ash, Gerald R
\\(Jerry\\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Happy New Year to all!
>
> Many thanks to Yaakov for his excellent handling of the list
> discussion. I'm not very surprised with the way it has gone.
> Déjà vu all over again :-)
>
> The chal
On Jan 5, 2006, at 09:25, Ash, Gerald R ((Jerry)) wrote:
I'd suggest we try to reach consensus first on the following:
Alternative format(s) for IDs, in addition to ASCII text, should be
allowed.
One requirement/motivation for this change (as set forth in the ID)
is to be able to include dr
27 matches
Mail list logo
