On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:24:51AM -0800,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
The problems with HTML are almost entirely the result of people
trying to give the author control over the final format which is
none of the author's beeswax.
BTW, does
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 04:06:23AM +0100,
Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
when you get into graphics it's hard to insist on text only.
I agree, SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics, http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/)
should be the standard for RFC. True, it is
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:45:27PM +0100,
Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
It has been the author's prerogative for thousands of years;
Certainly not, unless the author is also the typographer, which is
uncommon.
The author is the creator of
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:24:51AM -0800,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
If you try to print out RFCs in Europe
I print RFC all the time (I'm an old dino, used to paper), I live in
France which seems to be in Europe and It Works For Me.
At 10:24 08/11/2005, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:45:27PM +0100,
Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
It has been the author's prerogative for thousands of years;
Certainly not, unless the author is also the typographer,
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:41:13AM +0100,
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
Typography is a part of the presentation.
Nobody would object here :-)
Even in the French early XXth century poestry this was the case
(cf. Apollinaire).
Not everyone
On Nov 8, 2005, at 4:26 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
BTW, does anyone who knows IETF and the RFC-editor function better
than I do, can tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official format
for RFC, even now after six years?
My guess is that it is not a trivial matter to convert RFCs
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:36:55AM -0500,
Andrew Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
My guess
You mean there is nowhere an official statement and we have to guess?
is that it is not a trivial matter to convert RFCs submitted in
other forms into 2629 xml
I will be stepping down from the AD job in March,
that is, not re-upping as the nomcom does its work now
for TSV and RAI. Doing this service for the IETF
has been a blast but after a number of years,
it's enough service. More importantly, I believe
strongly that the IETF should always grow new
Actually quite a lot of people disagree. And this would HARDLY be considered
a MS friendly venue, though clearly as someone mentioned you've got a gripe
with Microsoft and not proprietary standards otherwise you wouldn't have
mentioned PDF.
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 18:59:10 +0100, Brian E
Many, many thanks to the Jabber scribes - there've been some
excellent note-takers and it's made it possible to follow along
well from home. The audio has also been excellent, although
it would be a help if more attention were paid to making sure
that folks with mobile mikes (that is to say, the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony G. Atkielski
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
A bad one, empower the reader.
Why are readers more important than authors?
Because they are your customers.
The point of
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
I agree, SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics, http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/)
should be the standard for RFC. True, it is not an IETF standard but
it is open (for whatever definition of open you choose).
Neither PostScript nor PDF is secret. And you can write software to
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
Because they are your customers.
The reader/author relationship is only very rarely comparable to
the customer/vendor relationship. For many authors, money is not that
important.
No, the author can not possibly know the needs of the reader.
The reader can pick
On Nov 8, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
You mean there is nowhere an official statement and we have to guess?
Not that I know of, but I could be wrong.
there are many people desiring some of the word processor features
(track changes, etc...) that are just not found in the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony G. Atkielski
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
Because they are your customers.
The reader/author relationship is only very rarely comparable
to the customer/vendor relationship. For many authors, money
is not
Title: What you should wear to tonight's IETF64 Social
-- Posted on behalf of Denise Dziubaniuk --
All,
The IETF Social event is now sold out. Thanks to everyone for your interest.
For those of you with tickets, you can enjoy most of the Aquarium sights from inside. However, some of
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
[your premise snipped ;-]
tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official
format for RFC, even now after six years?
It's an excellent tool to create real drafts and
RfCs. For real read text/plain us-ascii in the
format defined elsewhere (2223bis among others).
I don't think I've seen a reminder this week that
jabber room for the XXX WG or BOF is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't think I've seen a reminder this week that
jabber room for the XXX WG or BOF is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FYI:
Audio feed info:
http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/
Jabber info:
http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-chat.html
Meeting slides:
The IESG has received a request from the Multicast Security WG to consider the
following document:
- 'Bootstrapping TESLA '
draft-ietf-msec-bootstrapping-tesla-02.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.
The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG to
consider the following document:
- 'ECC Cipher Suites for TLS '
draft-ietf-tls-ecc-12.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.
22 matches
Mail list logo
