Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> Thu, 09 July 2009 16:15 UTC
Return-Path: <jhw@apple.com>
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 F21553A6A15 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 TnV7auAzdUSO for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AC73A683A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E9A6C87059 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id ADDD528091 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807130-a8ce3bb0000025da-44-4a56179ef745
Received: from [17.151.98.242] (unknown [17.151.98.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id B61D02807D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <328DF17A-CBAB-4583-B986-61E971525BEB@apple.com>
From: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <01ACD6EF5D2742A1832D0D585B2185F4@DGBP7M81>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Subject: Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
X-Priority: 3
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:15:23 -0700
References: <01ACD6EF5D2742A1832D0D585B2185F4@DGBP7M81>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
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: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:15:01 -0000
On Jul 3, 2009, at 08:07, 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 admire the attempt to separate these issues into orthogonal concerns, but I don't think it can succeed. The common aspect of all these issues is the question of whether our archival format should A) continue to be limited to a string of ASCII characters formatted for printing with a fixed-width font, or B) if it should be expanded to include a document archival format that can preserve font, style and figures. There is a related but separable topic of discussion once option B) is open for debate: what precisely should be the set of primary natural languages used in IETF documents? Should it continue to be English only? I'd very much prefer to see *that* discussion vigorously deferred while our archival format continues to be the largest practical obstacle to multilingualism. I believe there are no reasonable candidates for archival formats that can preserve font, style and figures without also providing for localization. > 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. Compared to the previous two issues, this one is just not so much important. -- james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> member of technical staff, communications engineering
- 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