>Is there any reason we can't create this on wikipedia itself, e.g.:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFC3514
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all that is supposed to go on the
main pages is encyclopedia type material, which this doesn't sound
like. There's a talk page where you can have a
Hi Nathaniel,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Nathaniel Borenstein
wrote:
>
> Is there any reason we can't create this on wikipedia itself, e.g.:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFC3514
>
The problem that I see in this case was mentioned previously by Keith and
Hector, wikipedia docs
> On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
>
> I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a
> wiki somewhere (e.g., "specsannotated.com") and get to work.
On Sep 16, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Wikipedia is about the only example of working volunteer mo
On 9/19/11 20:27 , Donald Eastlake wrote:
> I think a wiki per RFC with any sort of official IETF status is a bad
> idea that would create many cesspools of controversy.
6393 of them at present count...
It should not go unremarked that 6393 updates an existing document and
performs a standards ac
I think a wiki per RFC with any sort of official IETF status is a bad
idea that would create many cesspools of controversy.
Donald
On 9/19/11, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 9/19/11 8:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
>> +1
>> I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
>
> I don't
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Marshall Eubanks <
marshall.euba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Alejandro Acosta <
> alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Keith Moore
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Sa
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Alejandro Acosta <
alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Keith Moore
> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>> > On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
>> >> +1
>> >> I also support the
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> > On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
> >> +1
> >> I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
> >
> > I think that if some people support the idea, they
On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
>>> +1
>>> I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
>>
>> I think that if some people support the idea, they can ea
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
> Moore
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:20 AM
> To: Peter Saint-Andre
> Cc: Paul Hoffman; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: Wikis for RFCs
>
> On Sep 19, 201
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
>> +1
>> I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
>
> I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a
> wiki somewhere (e.g., "specsannotated.com")
>I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a
>wiki somewhere (e.g., "specsannotated.com") and get to work. If the
>experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just
>an experiment.
Agreed. In my experience, wikis only work well if they have someone
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a
> wiki somewhere (e.g., "specsannotated.com") and get to work. If the
> experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just
> an experiment.
I agr
On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
> +1
> I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a
wiki somewhere (e.g., "specsannotated.com") and get to work. If the
experiment has value, we'll figure that o
On 9/19/11 8:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
+1
I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
I don't. I'm basically in Paul's camp, although I don't think the
greatest risk is that there'd be a negative impact on how the
organization will be perceived by the community (alth
+1
I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> >
> >> Again I would like to bring up the idea of every RFC having
Murry,
I think I agree that a wiki page for every RFC is too chaotic an idea to
be workable.
I agree with the thought that the suggestion under consideration could
usefully be amended as "a wiki page for every RFC that needs one".
If I write a specification, it's published as an RFC, and we
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel
> jaeggli
> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 10:18 AM
> To: Keith Moore
> Cc: hector; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Wikis for RFCs
>
> One of the assumpti
Keith Moore wrote:
I think the Annotated CPAN example ( http://www.annocpan.org/) is near perfect
for our needs:
- The main text is visually distinguished from the annotations.
- Annotations are visually near the relevant text, rather than appended at the
end.
- The main text cannot be changed
On Sep 17, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Like Keith, I believe we can benefit a lot from users being able to freely
> annotate RFCs with implementation notes, corrections and even opinions ("this
> protocol option sucks!").
>
> But I also tend to agree with Joel that the wiki format
Like Keith, I believe we can benefit a lot from users being able to
freely annotate RFCs with implementation notes, corrections and even
opinions ("this protocol option sucks!").
But I also tend to agree with Joel that the wiki format is inappropriate
for this purpose, because if people are al
On Sep 17, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>> we have abundant evidence of there being color added in the context
>> of ietf mailing lists. problem is, there's a lot more than color
>> added there.
>>
>> a wiki is a different medium than email. because people can alter
>> and even del
On 9/17/11 10:29 , Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/11 12:22 , Keith Moore wrote:
>>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote:
>>>
I don't see these ass "Wikis" but basically "blog style" flat
display of user comments, which I ofte
On Sep 17, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Instead of having a wiki, why not have a wikipedia article for each RFC ?
> Whatever problems we would have with change control,
> wikipedia is already dealing with.
wikipedia has different goals. they're really trying to be an encyclopedia
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> > On 9/16/11 12:22 , Keith Moore wrote:
> >> On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't see these ass "Wikis" but basically "blog style" flat
> >>> display of user commen
On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 9/16/11 12:22 , Keith Moore wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see these ass "Wikis" but basically "blog style" flat
>>> display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially
>>> for the user ("th
On 9/16/11 12:22 , Keith Moore wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote:
>
>> I don't see these ass "Wikis" but basically "blog style" flat
>> display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially
>> for the user ("this way") upon user ("not always") follow ups.
>>
>> A Wik
Keith,
I think we already have the basis for this with the "tools" already
there when viewing an I-D, RFC via the tools.ietf.org url.
For example, in the last I-D submission I got, the email message did
not have this link (but it should):
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lodderstedt-oauth
My view since we do these user collaboration, "group ware" online
hosting software for a Living and deal with this "evolutionary"
ideas that always seem to be better but not always applicable.
Realistically, it has to be single source and as a migration, I think
it should be explored where
On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Andrew Feren wrote:
> On Fri 16 Sep 2011 03:22:08 PM EDT, Keith Moore wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see these ass "Wikis" but basically "blog style" flat display of
>>> user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for
On Fri 16 Sep 2011 03:22:08 PM EDT, Keith Moore wrote:
On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote:
I don't see these ass "Wikis" but basically "blog style" flat display of user comments, which I
often do find useful, especially for the user ("this way") upon user ("not always") follow ups.
A W
On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote:
> I don't see these ass "Wikis" but basically "blog style" flat display of user
> comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the user ("this way")
> upon user ("not always") follow ups.
>
> A Wiki is more where you can change the main conte
I don't see these ass "Wikis" but basically "blog style" flat display
of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the
user ("this way") upon user ("not always") follow ups.
A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps even
the context. I don't think that
Hi Paul,
I strongly support the idea of wikis interlinked with RFCs. I'd like to offer
two very successful examples, both much more relevant than Wikipedia: the PHP
Manual (see for examplehttp://www.php.net/manual/en/function.date-parse.php),
and the jQuery manual (e.g.http://api.jquery.com/bi
On Sep 16, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>>
>>> Again I would like to bring up the idea of every RFC having an associated
>>> wiki page(s). The goal here is to provide a way for impl
35 matches
Mail list logo
