Re: jabber rooms

2005-11-08 Thread Andy Bierman
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: https://onsite.ietf.org/publi

jabber rooms

2005-11-08 Thread Brian E Carpenter
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

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML

2005-11-08 Thread Frank Ellermann
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).

What you should wear to tonight's IETF64 Social

2005-11-08 Thread Ed Juskevicius
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,

RE: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> 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 > i

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Andrew Newton
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 xml

Re: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread 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 that important. > No, the author can not possibly know the needs of the reader. The reader can pick

Re: Open standards for pictures (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Anthony G. Atkielski
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 p

RE: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> -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 c

Notes from remote

2005-11-08 Thread Melinda Shore
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 s

RE: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Thomas Gal
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 Ca

Stepping down

2005-11-08 Thread Allison Mankin
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 p

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
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 f

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Andrew Newton
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 submit

Re: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
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 everyo

Re: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
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, w

Re: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
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. _

Re: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
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

Open standards for pictures (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
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

RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

2005-11-08 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
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,