Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> Fri, 03 July 2009 17:16 UTC
Return-Path: <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2880B28C2D4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.391
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AwPG0kk2shey for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harry.mail-abuse.org (harry.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50EDF28C2F7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (gateway1.sjc.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.81]) by harry.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D095EA94492; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 17:14:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
In-Reply-To: <01ACD6EF5D2742A1832D0D585B2185F4@DGBP7M81>
Subject: Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
X-Priority: 3
References: <01ACD6EF5D2742A1832D0D585B2185F4@DGBP7M81>
Message-Id: <410BE357-1AE2-4E60-AB97-ED449A821DBF@mail-abuse.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:14:11 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:16:36 -0000
On Jul 3, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: > As always when this discussion occurs, there are at least three > different issues swirling around: > > 1. ASCII-only vs. UTF-8 > 2. Plain text vs. higher-level formatting, for text flow and > readability > 3. Whether it is a good idea to include high-quality pictures in RFCs > > There are not the same issue, and it would help combatants on both > sides not to mix them up. > > I don't know where the argument "don't help authors prepare I-Ds > using the tools of their choice, unless they are open-source" fits > into this picture. Perhaps some of these difficulties can be remedied by allowing use of RFC 2223 with perhaps extensions by RFC 2346. What is missing are likely automation tools able to accept this original publication practice. This approach allowing postscript, html, and pdf output has not kept pace with the automation provided by the combination of TCL code and XML formats detailed in RFC 2629. If there is interest to revisit the use of roff and standardize preprocessors similar to that of xml2rfc, it should not take much effort to include these techniques as a means to extend what can be included within an ID and RFC. For this not to create too many problems, RFC 2223 should be updated. Reliance upon open source tools ensures the original RFCs and ID can be maintained by others, without confronting unresolvable compatibility issues. It would also be a bad practice to rely upon unstable proprietary formats having limited OS support and significant security issues. -Doug
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Doug Ewell
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Douglas Otis
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Doug Ewell
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Douglas Otis
- MS Word flame war (was: Re: RFC archival format) Doug Ewell
- Re: Avoid unknown code sources (was: Re: RFC arch… Douglas Otis
- Re: Avoid unknown code sources (was: Re: RFC arch… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… james woodyatt
- IETF languages, was: something about RFCs Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: IETF languages, was: something about RFCs james woodyatt
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Byung-Hee HWANG
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Doug Ewell
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Douglas Otis
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Julian Reschke
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Doug Ewell
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Doug Otis
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Julian Reschke
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Iljitsch van Beijnum