I think I'm going to declare the toy poll closed. What it shows
is:
prefer nroff: 11
prefer xml: 52
neither: 11
We can't claim statistical significance, but I think
we can see that, without discriminating against
traditional plain text, we help a majority of authors
by making XML submissi
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Scott W Brim wrote:
> On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
> > what the toy shows after about a day is:
> >
> > prefer nroff: 8
> > prefer xml: 37
> > neither: 9
>
> I wonder how many of th
Bruce Lilly wrote:
On Fri April 8 2005 07:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my
assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that
proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate
I-Ds using a plain text editor, and intuitively OpenOffice
On Fri, 2005/04/08 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(otoh I have nroff macros to help in writing MIBs, which e.g., create
the SEQUENCE so it's never out of sync with the objects in a table...
can't think of how I would do that in XML offhand)
You would use XML entities (recent xml2rfc versions hav
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?
Let's see. I've done lots of drafts with both, using (in the nroff case)
several different macro packages. I have also produced several very large
non-RFC documents (in the thousand page range) using
> On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
> > what the toy shows after about a day is:
> >
> > prefer nroff: 8
> > prefer xml: 37
> > neither: 9
> I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using bo
> Date: 2005-04-07 17:33
> From: "Alex Rousskov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If text and PDF/PS formats are generated automatically (and correctly)
> >> by
> >> the Toolset from the same source, then
On Fri April 8 2005 07:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my
> assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that
> proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate
> I-Ds using a plain text editor, and intuitively OpenOffice
> doesn't s
In your previous mail you wrote:
I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my
assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that
proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate
I-Ds using a plain text editor,
=> why? I used a plain text editor before moving t
On Apr 8, 2005 6:48 AM, Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my biggest gripe is the fact that (as of the last time I looked) the
> draft version is taken from the input filename rather than text internal
> to the file
If you use , and run
the tool like "xml2rfc input.xml draft-fenner-xml-
On Apr 8, 2005 5:27 AM, Scott W Brim wrote:
> On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> > prefer nroff: 8
> > prefer xml: 37
> > neither: 9
>
> I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?
I picked "neither" since I use both and don't have a strong
pre
On Fri, 2005/04/08 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
my biggest gripe is the fact that (as of the last time I looked) the
draft version is taken from the input filename rather than text internal
to the file, which makes putting this stuff under source control in a
meaningful way really annoying as
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:27, Elwyn davies wrote:
> Xml2rfc has a mechanism for adding comments which is a little bit more
> trouble than M$Word's but works in very similar ways.
>
> You are right that revision marking is not so easy but the various diff
> tools help. Maybe we ought to ask for som
uot; drawings just like
> IEEE and ITU.
>
> Stewart
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Elwyn
> >
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> >>Stewart Bryant
> >>Sent: 08 April
Scott W Brim wrote:
I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?
Isn't it sufficient for one to have to have suffered *roff in other
contexts?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; ietf@ietf.org; IETF
TOOLS discussion
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset'
to Informational RFC
I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word
to produce drafts.
Stewart
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Regardless of th
On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
> what the toy shows after about a day is:
>
> prefer nroff: 8
> prefer xml: 37
> neither: 9
I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?
__
I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my
assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that
proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate
I-Ds using a plain text editor, and intuitively OpenOffice
doesn't seem likely either.
It's easy to create your own poll at the sa
Bryant
> Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; ietf@ietf.org; IETF
> TOOLS discussion
> Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset'
> to Informational RFC
>
> I would al
I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word
to produce drafts.
Stewart
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
what the toy shows after about a day is:
prefer nroff: 8
prefer xml: 37
neither: 9
which implies a few hundred abst
On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote:
On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Draft section 8 states:
>
>Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format
>must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their
>content matches plain text format (R143/a).
>
>
> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Draft section 8 states:
> >
> >Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format
> >must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their
> >content matches plain text format (R143/a).
> >
> > That would see
On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Draft section 8 states:
Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format
must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their
content matches plain text format (R143/a).
That would seem to be unnecessary if PostScript
On Thu April 7 2005 12:21, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which implies, for the case of documents where figures (etc.) differ
> > in PostScript/PDF and plain text versions, that there will still be a
> > substantial amount of manual effort required
On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: 2005-04-06 12:45
From: "Alex Rousskov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As others have pointed out, nroff (or MS Word, etc.) fans can still
submit their drafts using the Toolset (as currently defined); they just
will not submit their sources.
Whi
> Date: 2005-04-06 12:45
> From: "Alex Rousskov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As others have pointed out, nroff (or MS Word, etc.) fans can still submit
> their drafts using the Toolset (as currently defined); they just will not
> submit their sources.
Which implies, for the case of documents where f
Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
what the toy shows after about a day is:
prefer nroff: 8
prefer xml: 37
neither: 9
which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course.
Brian
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people
argui
On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] my concern, particularly regarding
a document with the formidable word "Requirements" in its title, is
that there should also be provision for those who prefer to use
troff/nroff.
I am going to add the following to the ID Submission draft:
On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have to admit that I use nroff about 75% of the time and XML about
25%, I'm much happier about the postscript/PDF output options from
nroff than from XML,
To be fair, poor output quality is not XML's fault, it is tool's fault.
Popular tools i
On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I think the main reason is that any time we needed custom
handling for a topic it was easy to write a macro to handle it; the
same thing in XML would probably mean adding preprocessors (perhaps an
xsl transform).
Yes, I use preprocessors (t
On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO neither nroff source nor XML source qualify as "easily produced".
A text editor -- any text editor -- suffices for nroff source.
That includes vi, emacs, textpad (MS Windows), SiED (PalmOS), etc.
Same for editing XML sources, of course. One d
On Tue, 2005/04/05 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue April 5 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
While I have no data to either confirm or refute that assertion, RFC
2223 section 3 and the draft successor to that document both explicitly
state that the RFC Editor uses nroff.
Yes, but speaking from per
On 4/6/2005 11:20, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote:
> Using an XML-specific editor basically substitutes manually
> typing tags by a search for a pointing device, selection from a menu,
> etc. (avoiding typos while entering long tags, but interrupting the
> mental flow of writing content to search for
On Apr 6, 2005 7:10 AM, Alex Rousskov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have to admit that I use nroff about 75% of the time and XML about
> > 25%, I'm much happier about the postscript/PDF output options from
> > nroff than from XML,
>
> To be
> Date: 2005-04-06 10:03
> From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I can't understand why you basically say that nroff can be typed
> manually, but XML requires an editor.
>
> I've never used an XML editor and have.. what, a couple of dozen
> drafts, many of them RFCs already. I've used so
Bruce Lilly wrote:
Not if the primary output is unusable. But maybe I missed your point...
Yes. Don't like the software? Write your own...
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Apr 6, 2005 5:38 AM, Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The biggest problem with XML editors is that they are unproductive.
> Editing XML in all of the ones I've seen goes something like:
> [mouse,icon,click,type a bit,mouse,...]
I've found that I can mostly avoid the mouse using XMLmind'
On Wed April 6 2005 08:03, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> Bruce Lilly wrote:
>
> >
> > Such as line breaks in the middle of words, followed by loss of
> > indentation?
> >
> > N.B. no smiley.
>
> So what?
So if the primary purpose of a piece of software is to produce
properly-formatted text documents,
Bruce Lilly wrote:
...
The number of text editors is very large and probably growing.
The biggest problem with XML editors is that they are unproductive.
Editing XML in all of the ones I've seen goes something like:
1. hunt for mouse
2. move cursor to nondescript icon and click
3. try to figure out
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
A text editor -- any text editor -- suffices for nroff source. That
includes vi, emacs, textpad (MS Windows), SiED (PalmOS), etc. In
theory, there exist commercial XML editors for PalmOS, but I suspect
thay they are less productive than the ones on other pla
On Tue April 5 2005 19:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, but speaking from personal experience, that doesn't mean they'll use
> _your_ nroff sources.
True. But the opportunity is there.
> Bruce, with all due respect, the effort you have expended on developing this
> seems to me to be headed i
Bruce Lilly wrote:
Such as line breaks in the middle of words, followed by loss of
indentation?
N.B. no smiley.
So what? The nice thing about an XML format is that if you don't like
the representation you can change it without changing the source. Isn't
that nice?!
Eliot
_
On Tue April 5 2005 23:56, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> I suspect
> there is something specific to xml2rfc plain text output that a simple
> script can detect while grepping through the drafts archive.
Such as line breaks in the middle of words, followed by loss of
indentation?
N.B. no smiley.
__
Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people
arguing about xml versus nroff (again). If you write Internet
Drafts, try this toy (and only vote once, please...).
If the toy doesn't work, don't blame me... I just found the
site with Google.
http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?
Sandy Wills wrote:
> I, too preferred OS2 over the Evil Empire, but it just got
> to be too much trouble so I have succumbed to the Dark Side
At least you have now an OS without Adobe fonts, so you won't
feel betrayed and deserted. Maybe I'll admit that I'm the
last V.90 OS/2 user worldwide nex
Frank Ellermann wrote:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/tutorial62.pdf
1.5 MB unreadable with Acrobat Reader 3.0 on an OS/2 system :-(
reads cleanly with Acrobat Reader 7.0 on a WinXP PeeCee, so it's a good
file, but the authors probably (inadvertently) turned the "backwards
compatibl
> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/tutorial62.pdf
1.5 MB unreadable with Acrobat Reader 3.0 on an OS/2 system :-(
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> On Tue April 5 2005 15:30, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005/03/02 (MST), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I've suggested (via Reply-To) discussion on the IETF list.
> >
> > Bruce,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for reviewing and commenting on the draft!
> >
> > I am preparing a revision to add
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Lilly writes:
>> For example, RFC Editor is often
>> using authors' XML sources.
>
>While I have no data to either confirm or refute that assertion, RFC
>2223 section 3 and the draft successor to that document both explicitly
>state that the RFC Editor uses
On Tue April 5 2005 15:30, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On Wed, 2005/03/02 (MST), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've suggested (via Reply-To) discussion on the IETF list.
>
> Bruce,
>
> Thanks a lot for reviewing and commenting on the draft!
>
> I am preparing a revision to address Last Call
Hi, maybe some typos or cases of DEnglish on my side:
| A draft which identifier (a.k.a. filename) is known and
| starts with "draft-ietf-".
s/which identifier/identifier which/ or s/which/whose/ (?)
| documents, Secretariat does not accept
s/, Secretariat/, the secretariat/ AFAIK there is or
The IESG Secretary announced, via the IETF-Announce list:
> The IESG has received a request from the TOOLS team to consider the
> following document:
>
> - 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset '
> as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
52 matches
Mail list logo
