Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: As far as I know (RFC-editor can and will (I suspect) correct me if I am wrong) the RFC-Editor will not generate the FINAL RFC from the xml source file. I am in fact not 100% sure how much of the editing they do to the xml source file. But at some point I believe they

RE: RFCs should be distributed in XML

> > These days, when a draft moves into the RFC editor queue, the RFC > > editor sends a request to the author to send in the xml2rfc input > > files if they exist. > > Ironically, the *very next* message in my inbox after Bill's was just > such a request from the RFC Editor, for draft-ietf-ltru-

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML

Bill Sommerfeld wrote: These days, when a draft moves into the RFC editor queue, the RFC editor sends a request to the author to send in the xml2rfc input files if they exist. Ironically, the *very next* message in my inbox after Bill's was just such a request from the RFC Editor, for draft-

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 11:43, Ted Faber wrote: > I > > request that the RFC editor will accept xml2rfc as an input format. > > I thought they did take it as a supplement or something, which I hope > indicates that they are considering mo

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) Yaakov Stein wrote: It's good that protocols needing more than 72 ASCII characters are forbidden. Just imagine what elegantly simple protocols we would have if we required the descriptions to be in Morse code. Good idea. It's a

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:13:33AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:22:10AM -0800, Ted Faber wrote: > > > > Getting anyone to change their authoring tool is difficult, so hoping > > for standardization on CVS input is pretty unlikely. In my experience, > > IETF con

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

For true archival storage, nothing can beat the elegance and simplicity of engravings on stone. I believe that this site in Georgia has plenty of room for even the most complicated RFC's : http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/statues/guidestones.htm I had occasion to discuss this thre

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:22:10AM -0800, Ted Faber wrote: > > Getting anyone to change their authoring tool is difficult, so hoping > for standardization on CVS input is pretty unlikely. In my experience, > IETF contributors are an order of magnitude more stubborn than most > authors, but even i

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas --web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > In OASIS the de facto document markup during the preparation of the > documents is Word. The principle reason for this is that Word allows for > changes to the document to be highlighted. I tried and found that, if I modify figures there is no highlightning. Even i

RE: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas --web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

3:25 AM > To: Ted Faber > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas > --web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:45:00AM -0800, Ted Faber wrote: > > > WRT revision control software on I-D

RE: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas --web public ation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

n I have to ask why not... -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip --> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:43 PM --> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ted Faber --> Cc: ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: RE: RFC

RE: Process for Process Change (Was Diagrams ((Was RFCs should be distributed in XML))

Sam, I agree with you on the fact that text should stand alone. People who think that it is not possible to describe a figure sufficiently well enough for it to be accurately understood without seeing it should try attending more conference calls where they are at the wrong (as in remote)

RE: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas --web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

once. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 3:25 AM > To: Ted Faber > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas &

Re: Process for Process Change (Was Diagrams ((Was RFCs should be distributed in XML))

*> *> P.S. Some good arguments have already been made on both sides of the *> ASCII art issue. I, like many others, use Word, etc. editors capable of *> sophisticated graphics, and have to struggle to convert to ASCII art in *> I-Ds. IMO this is a ridiculous waste of time and loss of

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:25:03AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:45:00AM -0800, Ted Faber wrote: > > > WRT revision control software on I-Ds, I think it's an excellent idea, > > but authors should use whatever they agree on. IMHO, the IETF doesn't > > need to p

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:00 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: Steve Crocker; Masataka Ohta; Yaakov Stein; > ietf@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant > Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) > > Well, even if you choose y

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

- From: Steve Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 11:28 AM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: Steve Crocker; Masataka Ohta; Yaakov Stein; ietf@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) Phillip, I spent a large fraction of my pr

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

; Masataka Ohta; Yaakov Stein; > ietf@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant > Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) > > Phillip, > > I spent a large fraction of my professional life in pursuit > of this alluring and seemingly simple goal. Here's a small &g

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

v Stein Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) Yaakov Stein wrote: It's good that protocols needing more than 72 ASCII characters are forbidden. Just imagine what elegantly simple protocols we would have if we required the descri

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

--> -Original Message- --> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:01 AM --> To: Gray, Eric --> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) --> Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) -->

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

48 AM --> To: Stewart Bryant; Masataka Ohta; ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) --> --> --> >It's good that protocols needing more than 72 ASCII characters are --> >forbidden. --> --> Just imagine what elegantly sim

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

TECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Masataka Ohta > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 8:30 AM > To: Yaakov Stein > Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant > Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) > > Yaakov Stein wrote: > > >>It's go

Process for Process Change (Was Diagrams ((Was RFCs should be distributed in XML))

onsson (LU/EAB) Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:19 AM To: Gray, Eric; Stewart Bryant Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) Very well stated!!! The ASCII-requirement is (apart from being a compact, generic, free, non-complex, document format) indirectly forc

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Yaakov Stein wrote: >>It's good that protocols needing more than 72 ASCII characters are >>forbidden. > Just imagine what elegantly simple protocols we would have > if we required the descriptions to be in Morse code. Good idea. It's a better approach to enforce much simpler protocols.

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Gray, Eric wrote: Stewart, While an interesting turn of phrase, "hair shirt approach" is hardly an accurate analogy, nor is it particularly apt to compare presentation materials (where there's a real live person in front of you to answer questions) with specifications (where there usual

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:45:00AM -0800, Ted Faber wrote: > WRT revision control software on I-Ds, I think it's an excellent idea, > but authors should use whatever they agree on. IMHO, the IETF doesn't > need to provide a system. CVS vs. RCS vs. subversion vs. $DIETY knows > what is too much

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 12:29:51PM -0800, Bill Fenner wrote: > Straight revision control systems aren't actually that good for XML > that's been edited in an XML editor, since they tend to pretty-print > the XML when saving, and people using 2 different editors could end up > creating diffs on eve

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

>It's good that protocols needing more than 72 ASCII characters are >forbidden. Just imagine what elegantly simple protocols we would have if we required the descriptions to be in Morse code. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ie

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On 11/16/05, Ted Faber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Bill was talking about making his editing plug-in display > changes to the document as change bars or whatnot. Right, whatnot. In actual fact, what I have been thinking of was a change-acceptance function for copy editing (show old, show

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

At 11:00 AM 11/16/2005 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Hello; I suspect that there is a lot more reliance of non-ASCII art out there than is officially admitted. I do not know how, for example, you can understand the PIMv2 state machine without reference to the (non-ASCII) diagrams provided in

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

ik Jonsson (LU/EAB); ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) --> --> Hello; --> --> I suspect that there is a lot more reliance of non-ASCII --> art out there than is officially admitted. --> --> I do not know how, for example

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:53:33AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill > Fenner writes: > >I've been pondering change tracking, in the context of copy-editing, > >but I haven't come up with a complete thought yet. > > > > CVS? Should the Secretariat make CVS a

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) --> --> It's interesting that when authors turn up at IETF to --> explain their work/resolve issues etc they use colored --> diagrams to do so - not ASCII art. --> --> Some of this is fashion

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 12:29:40PM +, Stewart Bryant wrote: > If we think that ASCII art is all that is needed, perhaps - as an > experiment - we should forbid the use of anything other than > ASCII art in presentations at the next IETF? Seconded. All in favor? -- Ted Faber http://www.isi.e

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Hello; I suspect that there is a lot more reliance of non-ASCII art out there than is officially admitted. I do not know how, for example, you can understand the PIMv2 state machine without reference to the (non-ASCII) diagrams provided in the (non-ASCII) version of the draft. Regards

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Stewart Bryant wrote: > Which results in protocol definitions that are choped up into so > many parts that no one can see how to put then back together. That's fine. Masataka Ohta ___ Ietf mailing list

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Masataka Ohta wrote: Stewart Bryant wrote: I don't see why such powerful techniques shouldn't be applied to the specifications themselves to allow the reader to most grasp what is being said with the minimum effort. It merely promote complex protocols to disallow the reader to grasp

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Stewart Bryant wrote: > I don't see why such powerful techniques shouldn't > be applied to the specifications themselves to allow the reader > to most grasp what is being said with the minimum effort. It merely promote complex protocols to disallow the reader to grasp even with the maximum effort

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

It's interesting that when authors turn up at IETF to explain their work/resolve issues etc they use colored diagrams to do so - not ASCII art. Some of this is fashionable, but in many cases it is to clearly articulate a point in the very little time made available. I don't see why such powerful

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

Many ietf folks use a "open source" source code control repository at sipfoundry.org to edit drafts. The folks at sipfoundry have been happy to give accounts to any IETF folks (and given sipfoundry is littered with IETF folks, I'd be surprised to see this change :-). There are already about 160 IE

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

on 2005-11-15 23:53 Spencer Dawkins said the following: > I can't believe we finally asked for something that the tools team had NOT > already thought about :-) Oh, there are many features on the current tools.ietf.org pages which are there because someone had a bright idea and asked for it. N

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On 11/15/05, Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for all the stuff that you HAVE thought about, to the point of making > it happen, of course, and best wishes in your continued thinking... I strongly agree. What I've seen of the new tools provided is excellent; they've immediately

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

Henrik, I can't believe we finally asked for something that the tools team had NOT already thought about :-) Thanks for all the stuff that you HAVE thought about, to the point of making it happen, of course, and best wishes in your continued thinking... Spencer _

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

Hi Bert, on 2005-11-15 17:55 Wijnen, Bert (Bert) said the following: > smb writes: >> CVS? Should the Secretariat make CVS archives available to WG >> document editors? I've written a book and many joint papers via CVS; >> it works very well for line-oriented ASCII input, whether XML, LaTeX,

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > Every little open source software project uses version control systems > these days. The IETF does not. And interestingly, the IETF even likes > to standardize this stuff (look at the WebDAV RFCs). Personally, I > liked CVS and I do even more appreciate SVN these da

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: ... Every little open source software project uses version control systems these days. The IETF does not. And interestingly, the IETF even likes to standardize this stuff (look at the WebDAV RFCs). Personally, I liked CVS and I do even more appreciate SVN these days (

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Nov 15 2005, at 18:47 Uhr, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: Every little open source software project uses version control systems these days. The IETF does not. Many WGs, of course, do, in scattered places, using random identity/ authentication schemes, depending on individuals for hosting th

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- webpublication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

Hi - > From: "Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: ; "Stewart Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:22 AM > Subject: Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On 11/15/05, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally, I > liked CVS and I do even more appreciate SVN these days (which is > actually a superset of WebDAV). > > I would love if the IETF could _offer_ subversion services for WGs who > want to use this. I think this is quite se

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

> From: Bob Braden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *> > *> Leave the ASCII art for recreational use. If you want to > be regarded as > *> a professional organization then make sure that every > communication > *> looks professional. ASCII art screams 'amateur'. > > I'm sorry, that is non

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 05:55:42PM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > smb writes: > > >I've been pondering change tracking, in the context of copy-editing, > > >but I haven't come up with a complete thought yet. > > > > > > > CVS? Should the Secretariat make CVS archives available to WG > > doc

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

*> *> Watching engineers implement specs as code I note that most use *> secondary sources such as O'Rielly in preference to the supposedly *> authoritative IETF specs. The lack of readability is a major reason. *> *> This is not the case with W3C specs. *> *> There is very l

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

alf Of Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:19 AM > To: Gray, Eric; Stewart Bryant > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) > > Very well stated!!! > > The ASCII-requirement is (apart from being a compa

RE: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

smb writes: > >I've been pondering change tracking, in the context of copy-editing, > >but I haven't come up with a complete thought yet. > > > > CVS? Should the Secretariat make CVS archives available to WG > document editors? I've written a book and many joint papers via CVS; > it works very

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

"Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill > Fenner writes: >>On 11/14/05, Stewart Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I would not mind swapping from to an XML package >>> provided it supported change-tracking, embedded comments, >>> highlighting, WY

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Fenner writes: >On 11/14/05, Stewart Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I would not mind swapping from to an XML package >> provided it supported change-tracking, embedded comments, >> highlighting, WYSWYG display, edit time spell and edit time >> grammer che

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Very well stated!!! The ASCII-requirement is (apart from being a compact, generic, free, non-complex, document format) indirectly forcing people to really make diagrams simple, i.e. not put too much crap (complexity) in one single figure. After having had to read documents from other organisation

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

> Depends. If the ASCII document is large enough, in theory you can represent any monochrome image > with an arbitrary degree of accuracy. > If line lengths or number are limited, though, this isn't possible. > Essentially you just make some non-blank ASCII character represent a dark pixel, >

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Stewart Bryant writes: > However these are not taken as normative, so you have to > produce an ASCII equivalent, which fundamentally limits the > complexity of any normative diagram. Depends. If the ASCII document is large enough, in theory you can represent any monochrome image with an arbitrar

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Joe Touch writes: > XML is modern? Where's the modern, WYSIWYG, outline-mode capable > editor? And does one exist that's free? XML is fashionable, not necessarily functional. There's a difference. > (I'd love to work in XML, but it seems like a 20-yr step backwards > to manually edit the source

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Randy.Dunlap writes: > SVG was mentioned (as spec'd by w3.org IIRC). > > So check out Inkscape: > "using the W3C standard Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) file format." > > Available for multiple platforms. > > http://www.inkscape.org/ Using an open format that requires people to install spec

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

On 11/14/05, Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Where's the modern, WYSIWYG, outline-mode capable editor? > And does one exist that's free? Still a work in progress, but see http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/xml2rfc-xxe/ . Outline mode is high on my todo list (I have one working that only does

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Joe! On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Joe Touch wrote: > XML is modern? Where's the modern, WYSIWYG, outline-mode capable editor? > And does one exist that's free? OpenOffice, XXE, etc. Google is your friend. RGDS GARY - ---

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stewart Bryant wrote: ... > We need to change the publication process so that we can move away > from 1960's improvisations to clear diagrams using modern > techniques. XML is modern? Where's the modern, WYSIWYG, outline-mode capable editor? And do

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, kent crispin wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:27:46PM +, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > We need to change the publication process so that we can move away > > from 1960's improvisations to clear diagrams using modern > > techniques. Anything less leaves us without the abilit

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:27:46PM +, Stewart Bryant wrote: > We need to change the publication process so that we can move away > from 1960's improvisations to clear diagrams using modern > techniques. Anything less leaves us without the ability to > describe protocols using the clearest metho

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Bob Braden wrote: *> *> Bob Braden wrote: *> *> > *> *> > *> > It just struck me as odd that people were grousing about ASCII's *> > *> appearance when PDF is available. *> > *> *> > *> People will stop complaining when the ASCII version is allowed to sa *> >

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

*> *> Bob Braden wrote: *> *> > *> *> > *> > It just struck me as odd that people were grousing about ASCII's *> > *> appearance when PDF is available. *> > *> *> > *> People will stop complaining when the ASCII version is allowed to sa *> > *> "see diagram in

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Bob Braden wrote: *> *> > It just struck me as odd that people were grousing about ASCII's *> appearance when PDF is available. *> *> People will stop complaining when the ASCII version is allowed to say *> "see diagram in the PDF version". *> *> Y(J)S *> Huh? That

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Jari Arkko wrote: Dave Crocker wrote: Folks might want to take a look at the latest xml2rfc capabilities. See . Besides making it far easier to include the correct boilerplate, it has the option of including pretty graphics for the PDF version, while using the ASCI

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

*> *> > It just struck me as odd that people were grousing about ASCII's *> appearance when PDF is available. *> *> People will stop complaining when the ASCII version is allowed to say *> "see diagram in the PDF version". *> *> Y(J)S *> Huh? That has always been allowe

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

People will stop complaining when ... Right on the nail I suspect you underestimate our ability to keep complaining. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/ma

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Dave Crocker wrote: Folks might want to take a look at the latest xml2rfc capabilities. See . Besides making it far easier to include the correct boilerplate, it has the option of including pretty graphics for the PDF version, while using the ASCII form for the ASCI

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

an --> Cc: ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML) --> --> --> --> Andrew Sullivan wrote: --> --> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 06:03:07PM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote: --> > --> >>There is. Lets not reopen the format

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Yaakov Stein wrote: It just struck me as odd that people were grousing about ASCII's appearance when PDF is available. People will stop complaining when the ASCII version is allowed to say "see diagram in the PDF version". Right on the nail - Stewart __

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On 11/14/05, Stewart Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would not mind swapping from to an XML package > provided it supported change-tracking, embedded comments, > highlighting, WYSWYG display, edit time spell and edit time > grammer checking, and was a simple to install and maintain > on XP. >

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 06:03:07PM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote: There is. Lets not reopen the format flame war. However, just for the record we DO have .pdf as a format that you can submit Internet Drafts and as something that you However these are not taken as normati

RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

> It just struck me as odd that people were grousing about ASCII's appearance when PDF is available. People will stop complaining when the ASCII version is allowed to say "see diagram in the PDF version". Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org h

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

I understand the difficulty of machine parsing, but wouldn't an XML format with human oriented output in PDF be nice? (I suppose I'm asking whether there's some historical flamewar over this that I managed never to look at, in which case I'll just keep my mouth shut.) There is. Lets not re

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 06:03:07PM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote: > There is. Lets not reopen the format flame war. However, > just for the record we DO have .pdf as a format that you > can submit Internet Drafts and as something that you Ok, consider it not re-opened. (And yes, I knew about the pdfs.

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

Andrew Sullivan wrote: What I find strange about this, though, is the reluctance to adopt PDF. It's a well-known open standard. There are plenty of free software interpreters and writers around, and Ghostscript passed the threshold for good output 2 or 3 versions ago. I understand the difficu

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:37:41AM -0500, Steve Crocker wrote: > The issue of diagrams is entangled in the long-standing discussion of > proprietary formats. There is a huge benefit in having a format that > *everyone* can access without difficulty or cost. I can't begin to > tell you the i

Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

IMHO, standardizing on _validated_ SVG with a library of well understood images that represented architectural components with attached semantics could be used to even start validating diagrams the same way we validate BNFs now. There are even UML to SVG tools for turning SVG drawings directly

Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

On Nov 14, 2005, at 8:56 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: BTW - one carrot that would tempt me away would be if the result allowed the normative text to incorprate proper diagrams - like ITU and IEEE - two name but two - have use in their specifications for the last 20 or so years. The issue of di

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

I too use Subversion and rfcdiff and xml2rfc. But there are people doing work (i.e. writing docs) in the IETF that do not work this way. They may find using a version control system to be time-wise expensive or prohibitive, especially compared to emailing track- change-docs back and fort

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML

ve to spend an hour or so marking up their text because no editing source exists. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Ellermann Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:15 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML Ste

RE: RFCs should be distributed in XML

t; Behalf Of Frank Ellermann > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:15 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML > > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > [your premise snipped ;-] > > tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official format for

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: [your premise snipped ;-] > tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official > format for RFC, even now after six years? It's an excellent tool to create real drafts and RfCs. For "real" read text/plain us-ascii in the format defined elsewhere (2223bis among others).

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Nov 8, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: You mean there is nowhere an official statement and we have to guess? Not that I know of, but I could be wrong. there are many people desiring some of the word processor features (track changes, etc...) that are just not found in the xml

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:36:55AM -0500, Andrew Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 14 lines which said: > My guess You mean there is nowhere an official statement and we have to guess? > is that it is not a trivial matter to convert RFCs submitted in > other forms into 2629 xml f

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Nov 8, 2005, at 4:26 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: BTW, does anyone who knows IETF and the RFC-editor function better than I do, can tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official format for RFC, even now after six years? My guess is that it is not a trivial matter to convert RFCs submit

RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:24:51AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 36 lines which said: > The problems with HTML are almost entirely the result of people > trying to give the author control over the final format which is > none of the author's beeswax. BTW,