IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf document development

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 29 October 2020 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1AF3A08A6; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w8TwHe6o_cW7; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D58F23A03FB; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26AF5F4070B; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97BCF4070B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j4HuTuE2n48A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CA55F40708 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E76389E3; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:48:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id GKG_SX2NN6QN; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:48:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D949389E1; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:48:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757B9439; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:41:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
In-Reply-To: <ce1c66c5-3b7b-436c-9440-5ba69a563b08@www.fastmail.com>
References: <20201026215117.GY39170@kduck.mit.edu> <20201026222427.8D3B624F19C4@ary.qy> <20201026235341.GA39170@kduck.mit.edu> <47e062c3-0f1f-02fd-d77f-645863af93aa@gmail.com> <f647c3b1-37aa-f43b-6b57-cd7d895f3c23@alum.mit.edu> <f4726c74-7857-e5cb-b441-dc8b897452bf@gmail.com> <508a1288-ee51-81e6-9d4b-6284fdcb036d@alum.mit.edu> <F6DD272E-8730-4D49-92AA-1F2B4B668FA6@tzi.org> <ce1c66c5-3b7b-436c-9440-5ba69a563b08@www.fastmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:41:18 -0400
Message-ID: <31101.1603971678@localhost>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf document development
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4749235894075417206=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
    > However, I still find that people routinely refer to the rendered
    > versions.  Many outside reviews refer to text by section numbers (which
    > is not in the source, ouch).  For people working on QUIC, we've mostly

Yes. That's really an annoyance.  In XML land how many of us have:

   <!-- section 4.5.6 -->
   <section title="FOO" ..>

I don't know how to do this in markdown, as there isn't really a useable
comment system, except using XML.

    > moved to direct references to the editor's copy.  The addition of
    > pilcrows on paragraphs has been a huge help in improving our ability to
    > reference text.  I wish that we could teach more people to do that.

I'm confused: what is it that we need to teach?

    > Collaborating on a Word document is great when you have either a small,
    > tightly-knit group who can use the tool effectively.  That is, when the
    > online tools are used, which support commenting and suggestions.  But
    > that process doesn't scale well and I don't see it as suitable in the
    > working group setting.

I find that even among monoculture of lifelong Word users, few actually know
how to use the mechanism properly.  Google Docs/Office365 has taught more
people how to do it right by eliminating the "merge" step.

    > I guess if you are comfortable with process that is slow and formal,
    > and you can rely on extensive clerical support, the submission of a
    > changeset in the form of a Word document is workable.  Or at least not
    > the most urgent process problem you need to concentrate on.

Receiving comments in the form of a marked up word (or PDF) is, very
bittersweet as an author.  Yes, so nice to get smart, extensive, review, but
basically triples the effort to apply the changes.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email