[Tools-discuss] Re: [Ext] PDF [Re: Tools team meeting tomorrow 9 July 2024 1800 UTC]

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

On 7/9/24 8:19 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Even if we continue to produce PDFs for RFCs, I doubt that there's much
> utility for drafts.

I upload the PDF version of the I-D on my ePaper tablet (Boox Lumi2) when I want to review, because the experience is similar to doing that on a printed copy with an erasable pen.  That also has the advantage that it is the same workflow as when reviewing papers (which are also PDFs).

RFCs I want to implement are printed using the paginated text format (which is technically carbon sinking as they never change) and annotated with an erasable pen.

Maybe one day I'll find a use for the HTML version of RFCs and I-Ds.


> There's no reason why it has to be the same for drafts
> as for RFCs. It's really up to the RSWG/RSAB for one and the IESG for the
> other.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 11:00 AM Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2024, at 03:37, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9. Jul 2024, at 08:04, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 8, 2024, at 21:34, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> Could we maybe stop pdfizing things in weird ways and simply build the
>> correct PDF form on I-D submission?
>>>>> The current state is just such a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> I have a more radical proposal: Stop PDFing completely,
>>>
>>> I don't think we should do that as long as PDF is one of the
>> presentation forms we get of an RFC.
>>
>> What is the logic here? Drafts are quite temporary, RFCs are forever, so
>> the rules can be different.
>>
>>> (And we shouldn’t stop that either, but that is an RSWG issue.)
>>
>> I disagree with the former, but agree with the latter. After the current
>> RSWG work settles a bit, and we have better data from the Tools Team, it
>> might be time to revisit the idea that we publish RFCs in PDF format at all.
>>
>>>> and instead make sure that browsers can print-to-PDF the HTML version
>> correctly.
>>>
>>> That is certainly a good thing and can be pursued independently.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> The actual requirement here is that, for I-Ds, reviewers can look at
>> useful previews of all the presentation forms that will be in the RFC even
>> before RPC does its magic.
>>
>> "useful" carries a lot of weight here, particularly when the text will
>> change between the last draft and the RFC itself. For the few authors that
>> care about this, the RFC Editor can have a portal where you tell it a
>> current draft and it does a one-time conversion to PDF using their exact
>> PDFing tool chain.
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> Tools-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [e-mail]
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug