Stephen McHenry wrote:
> On a more serious note, having done a lot of instruction over the years, it
> shouldn't be about ego (I paid my "understanding dues" - everyone else
> should too!!), it should be about communication... i.e., how quickly can we
> effectively communicate complex concepts...
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen McHenry typed
>>On a more serious note, having done a lot of instruction over the years, it
>>shouldn't be about ego (I paid my "understanding dues" - everyone else
>>should too!!), it should be about communication... i.e., how quickly can we
>>eff
% > > us understand CHI. Some of us like to think we do, but I suspect very few
% >
% >But CHI is only a secondary issue. The primary issue is the best format
% >for archives. We want something which is not likely to be superceded by
% >something better in a few years.
%
% Well, respectfully,
At 06:39 PM 2/24/2001, Scott Brim wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 04:47:42PM -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > You know, the people on this list make great computer scientists, network
> > architects, application and protocol designers. I'm not so sure how
> many of
> > us understand CHI. Some of us
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 04:47:42PM -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
> You know, the people on this list make great computer scientists, network
> architects, application and protocol designers. I'm not so sure how many of
> us understand CHI. Some of us like to think we do, but I suspect very few
> of u
You know, the people on this list make great computer scientists, network
architects, application and protocol designers. I'm not so sure how many of
us understand CHI. Some of us like to think we do, but I suspect very few
of us actually do. So, given this, why don't we ask some people who rea
One additional consideration, the poster had a .cn address.
If a graph will help with language/translation issues so much the better.
-Ren
On Sat, 24 February 2001, Stephen McHenry wrote:
>
> At 12:20 PM 2/24/2001, Bob Braden wrote:
> >Surely you jest. Animated GIF? How did you get through
At 12:20 PM 2/24/2001, Bob Braden wrote:
>Surely you jest. Animated GIF? How did you get through school without
>having your algebra dance on a screen? We can color the independent
>variables red, the functions green, and ...
Hey, that's not a bad idea.
>The serious protocol implementors I kn
> I hated ITU, but because now I can get ITU documents freely,
Well, I've never hated the ITU, though I'm not sure the feeling is mutual.
I consider myself a long-term friend of this august organization and have
even served in the voluntary Friends of the ITU Auxiliary Standards Corps
Organizatio
*> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 24 06:15:16 2001
*> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*> Subject: Re: Why XML is perferable
*> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:51:56 +0800 (CST)
*> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun'an Gao)
*> X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*>
*> > *>
At 08:16 24/02/2001 -0800, Sean Finn wrote:
>Even if a "local"/file URL is specified, how can this compound
>document get distributed via Email ... mailers vary greatly in
>how they deal with attachments.
MHTML specification, RFC 2557.
The only (AFAIK) compound document format within our repertoi
Jun'an Gao wrote:
>
> > *> well-known, but some RFCs such as those on OSPF may be much
> > *> more vivid if written in XML. There have been quite a few
>
> > Vivid? We are talking about deeply complex technical documents
> > here, not MTV. What do you mean, "vivid"?
>
> Maybe, we can disp
> *> well-known, but some RFCs such as those on OSPF may be much
> *> more vivid if written in XML. There have been quite a few
> Vivid? We are talking about deeply complex technical documents
> here, not MTV. What do you mean, "vivid"?
Maybe, we can display, say, an example of routing info
gument about XML.)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wang Xianzhu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 4:13 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Why XML is perferable
>
>
> > to render XML docum
*> well-known, but some RFCs such as those on OSPF may be much
*> more vivid if written in XML. There have been quite a few
Vivid? We are talking about deeply complex technical documents
here, not MTV. What do you mean, "vivid"?
Bob Braden
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:08:34 CST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun'an Gao) said:
> One can display doesn't necessarily mean one can comprehend.
But the *inability* to display it DOES necessarily mean you can't comprehend.
--
Valdis Kletnieks
> > > BTW, I hate to pay for ITU documents what are supposed to
> be public (I still remember the years old discussion when they
> ceased to exist available for anon ftp)
> >
> > I hate ITU too. :)
> >
Well, it's always useful for religious groups to have a
"great satan"... :-)
> Nice
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, gra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
>>Let's consider a few basic principles.
ok - lots of good points below - a few responses...
>>1. Neither ASCII nor XML are ever displayed. They are CODES for
>>representing characters in a computer. It is the CHARACTERS ( glyp
> -Original Message-
> From: Wang Xianzhu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 9:13 AM
> To: ietf
> Subject: Why XML is perferable
>
> >
> > Well it worked fine for 2800+ documents and how many today ?
> 3060+ today, with
ssage-
> From: Jorge Amodio [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 6:34 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why XML is perferable
>
>
>
> Wang Xianzhu wrote:
> >
> > to render XML documents to pure text presentation. There will
> to render XML documents to pure text presentation. There will be
> ^^^
> > converters from XML to HTML, ms word, ps, pdf and any other types of
> > presentation, suitable for any type of readers.
>
> Meanwhile I stick with ASCII,
Wang Xianzhu wrote:
>
> to render XML documents to pure text presentation. There will be
^^^
> converters from XML to HTML, ms word, ps, pdf and any other types of
> presentation, suitable for any type of readers.
Meanwhile I stic
> Repeat after me:
> Everybody can display ASCII. Until everybody can display XML, we won't
> be using XML for the canonical form for RFCs. This is *different* than
> what Marshall Rose did in RFC2629 - note that that document is itself
> *flat ascii* describing how to write XML and *then conve
>> Yet maybe we can safely assume that most of the people who are
>> interested in the Internet are, or will be in a short time, familiar
>> with XML documents.
> where do you get that idea?
Absolutely not from IETF maillist.
And there're so many internet sites other than www.ietf.org.
write a readable pure text version of ITU-T P.861.
Wang Xianzhu
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jun'an Gao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: Why XML is perferable
&
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:43:02 CST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun'an Gao) said:
> Assumption:
>
> Total Comprehensiveness of RFCs
> = SIGMA {
> *
> }
Notice that the second term evaluates to:
1 if you can display it effectively.
0 if you can't display it effectively.
Now, if you'r
Assumption:
Total Comprehensiveness of RFCs
= SIGMA {
*
}
for i = 1 to number of RFCs, j = 1 to number of readers.
Argument:
Some RFCs can be well-written in simple ASCII and become
well-known, but some RFCs such as those on OSPF may be much
more vivid if written in XML.
27 matches
Mail list logo
