discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
- Original Message - From: Michel Py mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us To: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com; John Levine jo...@iecc.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:09 AM I think all of you guys are getting a little too serious about this thing. Here's my take: even in a 100% Microsoft shop, .pptx is a pain as much as .xlsx and .docx. And yes, I know about the free fileformatconverters.exe, thank you very much. It does not work on my Microsoft cell phone that does not read .pptx, but does read .ppt. .pptx is a pain in the arse. I don't care if it's standard, legally standard, IETF approved, de-facto standard, or anything. Even if one is using a newer version of PowerPoint, one can save as .ppt. .pptx is just like HTML in a mailing list: just say no. Could we also say 'No' to .docx, another incomprehensible format designed to persuade us to take time out, spend money and upgrade all and sundry? I notice some ADs/WG chairs using this and while it gets converted to good ole ASCII when it is archived, I would like to be able to read it earlier in the process. Tom Petch Michel. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
--On Saturday, November 26, 2011 12:11 +0100 t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote: Could we also say 'No' to .docx, another incomprehensible format designed to persuade us to take time out, spend money and upgrade all and sundry? I notice some ADs/WG chairs using this and while it gets converted to good ole ASCII when it is archived, I would like to be able to read it earlier in the process. FWIW, I think that, if we are going to start banning proprietary formats, it makes lots more sense to ban _all_ proprietary formats, not just picking and choosing among proprietary formats that are, e.g., more recent or less frequently reverse-engineered than others. So, yes, let's ban pptx, docx, ppt, doc, non-standardized forms of PDF, GIF, ... That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and RFC 5198-conforming UTF-8. That wouldn't bother me much, but be careful what you wish form. john john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 11/26/11 11:43 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Saturday, November 26, 2011 12:11 +0100 t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote: Could we also say 'No' to .docx, another incomprehensible format designed to persuade us to take time out, spend money and upgrade all and sundry? I notice some ADs/WG chairs using this and while it gets converted to good ole ASCII when it is archived, I would like to be able to read it earlier in the process. FWIW, I think that, if we are going to start banning proprietary formats, it makes lots more sense to ban _all_ proprietary formats, not just picking and choosing among proprietary formats that are, e.g., more recent or less frequently reverse-engineered than others. So, yes, let's ban pptx, docx, ppt, doc, non-standardized forms of PDF, GIF, ... That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and RFC 5198-conforming UTF-8. That wouldn't bother me much, but be careful what you wish form. HTML is not on that list? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
FWIW, I think that, if we are going to start banning proprietary formats, it makes lots more sense to ban _all_ proprietary formats, not just picking and choosing among proprietary formats that are, e.g., more recent or less frequently reverse-engineered than others. So, yes, let's ban pptx, docx, ppt, doc, non-standardized forms of PDF, GIF, ... I gather that you consider ECMA-376 and ISO/IEC 29500 formats to be proprietary. On the other hand, the definition of GIF is in a 20 year old document published by a predecessor of AOL, which includes a widely ignored trademark license requirement and an infamous patent. Hmmn. Since apparently some formats specified in ECMA and ISO standards are proprietary, while some that are privately defined and encumbered with trademark and patent restrictions are not, could someone provide a concise description of how I can recognize a non-proprietary format? R's, John PS: I'm not denying that docx and pptx can be unpleasant to deal with, although LibreOffice hides a lot of the unpleasantness. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:11 AM, t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote: I notice some ADs/WG chairs using this and while it gets converted to good ole ASCII when it is archived, I would like to be able to read it earlier in the process. To allow people to read versions of documents throughout the development process, export to ASCII/PDF could be suggested/encouraged/required when versions of documents are shared with others. Given a dozen authors, one may find a dozen different authoring environments using a half-dozen or more word processing, markup, or typesetting applications. Even with that diversity, all of the documents can (likely) be distilled down into a tidy set of PDF/A files. If interoperability is required for shared editing of documents, then I agree that formats like ASCII or plain HTML might be more widely supported than a format such as Word binary (.doc) or OOXML, but for just shared viewing of documents, I believe that PDF/A will serve very well. --R ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 11/26/2011 10:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and RFC 5198-conforming UTF-8. That wouldn't bother me much, but be careful what you wish form. HTML is not on that list? No doubt it should be, but which version, exactly? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 11/26/2011 11:23 AM, John Levine wrote: I gather that you consider ECMA-376 and ISO/IEC 29500 formats to be proprietary. John, Citing open specs is relevant and probably important, but this being the IETF, it is always trumped by interoperability concerns. In this case, we've seen references to /continuing/ interoperability problems when trying to use docx. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
I gather that you consider ECMA-376 and ISO/IEC 29500 formats to be proprietary. In this case, we've seen references to /continuing/ interoperability problems when trying to use docx. I wouldn't disagree, but if we mean easy to interoperate, let's say so. Word 97-2003 format is totally proprietary, but is now sufficiently widely reverse engineered that it interoperates pretty well. On the other hand, ODF format is well documented and interoperates well among different software that support it, but since old versions of Microsoft Office don't support it, we get complaints. Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 11/26/2011 11:51 AM, John R. Levine wrote: I gather that you consider ECMA-376 and ISO/IEC 29500 formats to be proprietary. In this case, we've seen references to /continuing/ interoperability problems when trying to use docx. I wouldn't disagree, but if we mean easy to interoperate, let's say so. Word 97-2003 format is totally proprietary, but is now sufficiently widely reverse engineered that it interoperates pretty well. On the other hand, ODF format is well documented and interoperates well among different software that support it, but since old versions of Microsoft Office don't support it, we get complaints. For a production requirement, such as being discussed here, the requirement should only call for use of extremely well-established data representations, where 'extremely well-established' means highly stable and massively widespread for a significant number of years. We expect our own use to be for many years and adopting something that is still in the flush of transition is extremely unwise. Equally, the extent to which we worry about archaic software is relevant, but can be marginal for specific cases. The world being imperfect, interoperability will never be perfect. So we have to look at the degree of it that exists and decide whether it is enough. For example, do we want to worry about packages that are perhaps more than 15 years old and don't support a particular representation? Is there enough use of such old software to be a real concern? Enough is, of course, the critical word. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
--On Saturday, November 26, 2011 19:23 + John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: FWIW, I think that, if we are going to start banning proprietary formats, it makes lots more sense to ban _all_ proprietary formats, not just picking and choosing among proprietary formats that are, e.g., more recent or less frequently reverse-engineered than others. So, yes, let's ban pptx, docx, ppt, doc, non-standardized forms of PDF, GIF, ... I gather that you consider ECMA-376 and ISO/IEC 29500 formats to be proprietary. On the other hand, the definition of GIF is in a 20 year old document published by a predecessor of AOL, which includes a widely ignored trademark license requirement and an infamous patent. Hmmn. Indeed. If you reread what I wrote, I was not suggesting permitting GIF (for the reasons you identify-- the thing is proprietary no matter how often reverse-engineered and abused. As far as ECMA-378 and ISO/IEC 29500 are concerned, the process by which those standards were created was itself, in your words, infamous. But, if taken seriously, they permit docx and _not_ .doc. That is precisely where my be careful what you wish for comment originated. PS: I'm not denying that docx and pptx can be unpleasant to deal with, although LibreOffice hides a lot of the unpleasantness. And anyone who uses those formats a lot from Office and is either unlucky or knows what to look for, could, the last I checked, rather easily create documents with which LibreOffice will not cope effectively. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and RFC 5198-conforming UTF-8. That wouldn't bother me much, but be careful what you wish form. What we have been told is that the rationale behind the use of ASCII and several other formats is that they will remain readable on devices that will be used X years hence. ASCII is already unreadable on many popular devices and in a few years will be no better than old versions of word. I am referring to the fact that more and more people are reading documents on cell-phones and other small devices. According to analysts, this will be the most popular platform for reading material from the Internet within a few years. The ASCII art used in RFCs becomes hopelessly mangled and unreadable, while the rest of the text is merely hard to read. On the other hand, were the figures to be in any format that preserves their integrity, one would see a small depiction that could be enlarged as necessary. So I suggest removing ASCII from the list, as ASCII art will not be readable on mainstream devices in the near future. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 08:52:20PM +, Yaakov Stein wrote: ASCII is already unreadable on many popular devices and in a few years will be no better than old versions of word. I am referring to the fact that more and more people are reading documents on cell-phones and other small devices. According to analysts, this will be the most popular platform for reading material from the Internet within a few years. The ASCII art used in RFCs becomes hopelessly mangled and unreadable, while the rest of the text is merely hard to read. On the other hand, were the figures to be in any format that preserves their integrity, one would see a small depiction that could be enlarged as necessary. If you can pan and scan a complex PDF file, you can pan and scan ASCII art. Furthermore, ASCII text has the benefit that you can much more easily reflow the text portions of the document. If I only had a small screen device, and I had my choice between an unreflowable PDF file, and a sufficiently smart ASCII reader that would allow me to switch back and forth between reflowed ASCII text, and a pan and scan mode for ASCII art, the ASCII document would be ***far*** more readable on a small screen than the aforementioned PDF document. - Ted So I suggest removing ASCII from the list, as ASCII art will not be readable on mainstream devices in the near future. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 15:52, Yaakov Stein yaako...@rad.com wrote: ASCII is already unreadable on many popular devices Oh? For what reason? Sorry, I'm still using an incredibly stupid phone, so I may be behind the curve on such changes. As far as I've seen in my limited exposure, any difficulty is usually because it's often not linewrapped well (or at all), forcing a lot of horizontal scrolling, especially after being forced to be big enough to be legible on tiny screens not held right up to the face. That's rather inconvenient, but still a far cry from unreadable -- plus it's a problem with the reader program (being too featureless to rewrap the text), not anything inherent in the format. ASCII *artwork*, yes, that often gets ruined by the refusal of many programs to allow the user to display content in a monospaced font. But that's not because it's in plain ASCII; you could say the same thing of a Word or PDF document that incorporates ASCII art. I am referring to the fact that more and more people are reading documents on cell-phones and other small devices. According to analysts, this will be the most popular platform for reading material from the Internet within a few years. But among what audience? End-users at large, yes, I can certainly believe that. But techies, especially of sufficient caliber to even *want* to read the IETF's output, let alone participate in creating it? Very doubtful. I don't think we'll be giving up our laptops, never mind large monitors, any time soon. Phones and tablets are for content *consumption*. We are content *creators*, be it programs, documents, or whatever. That's an entirely different set of hardware requirements. When was the last time you saw a program or document or anything else of significant size, written using a phone, or even a tablet? -Dave -- LOOKING FOR WORK! What: Ruby (on/off Rails), Python, other modern languages. Where: Northern Virginia, Washington DC (near Orange Line), and remote work. See: davearonson.com (main) * codosaur.us (code) * dare2xl.com (excellence). Specialization is for insects. (Heinlein) - Have Pun, Will Babble! (Aronson) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: reading on small devices, was discouraged by .docx
ASCII is already unreadable on many popular devices and in a few years will be no better than old versions of word. If you can pan and scan a complex PDF file, you can pan and scan ASCII art. I've been doing some experiments trying to make RFCs and I-D's readable on my Kindle. It has native support for some reflowable formats (AZW and MOBI), and PDF. Amazon provides conversion software that turns several other formats into their flavor of MOBI, and a conversion service in which you e-mail documents to an address assigned to your Kindle, and they convert them to versions that appear on your device via a wireless network connection. You can also plug it into your PC as a USB disk and copy MOBI, AZW, and PDF files to it. The conversion service will accept text documents, but the results of sending an RFC or I-D through it are too painful to read other than in utter desperation, not just the ASCII art but the scrambled text. The device renders PDF page images quite well, but since the screen is so small, the text is too small to read. There's an option to select a rectangle and expand it, but the rectangle doesn't cover an entire line and you have to move it back and forth for every line which is slow and painful. You can turn the Kindle sideways, it rescales PDFs to the width of the screen, and you can use the up and down buttons. That is large enough to read, although still pretty small. I would have to say that PDF support is better than text, but still pretty poor. If you have PDFs with a native 4x6 page size, they look great, but you need to have your document in some other format that can be reformatted and printed to small page size PDFs. The conversion service and software handle a reasonable subset of HTML, so I tried running the XML source for I-Ds through saxon or the new xml2rfc, and then converting that to a Kindle native format. That works well, text nicely reflowed, ASCII art preserved as a block, and links to other sections and documents even work. I now use those as working versions of my I-D's. I haven't tried other e-readers, but the MOBI format is not unlike ePub format, so I expect the results would be similar. This tells me that it would be really nice to have a meta-format (probably xml2rfc, since it exists, and it's ASCII underneath so under even the worst scenarios the content is still accessible) that we can render into formats that work on whatever devices we use to read stuff. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
