At 07:49 AM 3/12/2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
>the ietf
>is one of the least xml-friendly communities out there. i think that colors
>your thinking.
well, it is true that there are some IETF people showing an extraordinarily
retrograde tenacity to outdated formats like RFC822 headers, but I had
> There have been several proposals recently and many over the years to
> replace the current encoding rules for RFCs. Check some of the recent
> threads at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/threads.html
blah, blah, blah. i'm familiar with this thread, and the thread that pops up
eve
> From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> > Until then, it is not appropriate to change the massively-stable base that
> > forms the encoding rules for RFCs. XML as an adjunct is fine. As a
> > primary form for RFCs? Not yet.
>
> err, i don
> Taking the sort of paranoid approach that befits assurances of stability,
> needed for people doing critical operations, I look for a well-established
> range of products and for wide-spread use. Because IETF documents are
used
> far beyond the confines of the IETF, the term "wide-spread" needs
> A premise behind the formatting rules for IETF documents is that they are
> easy to create and easy to read. As popular as XML is in the minds of the
> technical community, there are few tools for creating it and little
> widespread use of it.
>
> So far.
dave - i think this is one of those ym
At 12:08 AM 2/28/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [ It is precisely because we do not operate a "sweat shop" that we
>do not expect everybody to engage on ALL the IETF lists. We have the quaint
>idea that the work should be shared out. Oddly enough, we have a company
>hierarchy, in which
> "graham" == graham travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
graham> In my, limited, coding experience, I don't recall finding ASCII diagrams as
graham> part of the code. Poor diagrammatic capability is one of the problems I
Perhaps that's why you don't write much code.
Almost all
John Stracke wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In my, limited, coding experience, I don't recall finding ASCII diagrams as
> > part of the code. Poor diagrammatic capability is one of the problems I
> > have with ASCII.
>
> Oh, ASCII art. I dunno; I've never used it.
A clarification (sin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In my, limited, coding experience, I don't recall finding ASCII diagrams as
> part of the code. Poor diagrammatic capability is one of the problems I
> have with ASCII.
Oh, ASCII art. I dunno; I've never used it. It's often not very useful; it's
nice for packet form
> -Original Message-
> From: Lloyd Wood [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: HTML better for small PDAs
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTEC
l: +44 1359 235086
* Mobile: 0780 8502536
> *Fax: +44 1359 235087
* HW B279, P.O. Box 200, London, N18 1ZF
* - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: John Stracke [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:06 PM
> To: [EM
OTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 10:27 PM
> To: Lyndon Nerenberg
> Cc: Marshall T. Rose; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: HTML better for small PDAs
>
>
>
> I guess I have to hold up this "letter" sized paper display and try to
> write on it at th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have people working for me who write I-Ds, and who HATE the ASCII
> format that they are forced to use. So much so, that they have threatened
> never to write another I-D. Do we want to deprive the IETF community of the
> input of experienced technical peopl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, I have already conceded that we need a "master copy"
The point is that, if there exists a non-master copy that's easier for some
people to read, they won't read the master. If the non-master copy doesn't
agree with the master (and many of them won't), then these
, February 27, 2001 7:59 AM
> To: Marshall T. Rose; Vernon Schryver; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small PDAs)
>
>
> At 18:30 26/02/2001 -0800, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
> > > There is a use for XML or nroff versions of I-D's (but
> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vernon> No, do not *ASK* people what they used, but instead use the FTP
Vernon> logs and try to filter mirrors.
You have to filter out everyone's personal mirror, and then you don't
know if I used the files or not...
Ve
> -Original Message-
> From: Vernon Schryver [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 3:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small PDAs)
>
> > From: Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECT
> "Harald" == Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> Let's also say that for each I-D, the secretariat will accept up to 1 file
Harald> containing "source", where "source" can be NROFF macros, XML (Marshall's
Harald> DTD) text or Word documents.
As long as ever
> From: Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> After 9 months, we can ask people to evaluate:
>
> - Whether they used "source" at all
> - What formats they found that were useful
> - What formats they found that caused trouble
> ...
No, do not *ASK* people what they used, but instead use
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, joaquin.riveraro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
>>>I am sure that will help, while the discussion on the standard format goes on,
>>the tools will be helpfull to everyone whatever the final decision
At 18:30 26/02/2001 -0800, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
> > There is a use for XML or nroff versions of I-D's (but not RFC's) that
> > has not been mentioned much (maybe first in your mention of "ASCII memos
> > can't be reformatted"). It saves lots of work to exchange editorial
>changes
> > as deltas
Dear everyone,
After reading every day about 20 emails about this subject, this is one of the
wisest thing I have read (ether in a laptop or PDA).
TP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 8:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: HTML better for small PDAs
>
> If the ASCII version of an RFC is complete, then the XML alternate is
> not needed. If the alternate is needed even only for "i
I guess I have to hold up this "letter" sized paper display and try to
write on it at the same time.
I'll believe it when I see it. I saw the article on this topic in MIT Tech
review a few months ago, but they were saying that this technology is
years ahead. In the meantime, I will keep on using
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 06:30:56PM -0800, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
> i agree. i'm not asking that we publish RFCs in any new formats. i'm
> suggesting that we experiment for 9 months in the I-D area.
One of the absolute best reasons to use the XML stuff (beyond the many
other stated reasons) is th
> the hardware problem is the eyes and the hands. i use a pda because i can
> put it in my hip pocket. that's just not going to happen with a screen that
> half-size or full-size.
You're thinking too traditionally. Displays will decouple from the
processor (think Bluetooth). The "CPU" will holste
> There is a use for XML or nroff versions of I-D's (but not RFC's) that
> has not been mentioned much (maybe first in your mention of "ASCII memos
> can't be reformatted"). It saves lots of work to exchange editorial
changes
> as deltas to a mark up language version.
i agree. this certainly is
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:57:17 MST, Lyndon Nerenberg said:
> display technology moves forward at, by the time we all finish
> arguing over this the current crop of postage-stamp size PDA
> displays will be ancient history.
Heads Up Displays.
--
Valdis Kletnieks
At 3:57 PM -0700 2/26/01, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> > what i do care about is the fact that ASCII memos can't be
>reformatted. that
>> is just plain silly.
>
>Marshall, do you think tiny PDA displays will be with us for a
>substantial amount of time? It seems to me that, with the rate
>display
> There's more to this than just ID's/RFCs. Pretty damned near
> everything has to be reformatted to fit on those itty-bitty screens,
> and that just isn't going to happen. Consumers will demand (and
> get) readable displays. I really think we're better of fixing this
> problem in hardware.
the
> From: Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> I'm not certain that this would be the case for a sufficiently constrained
> DTD. Something at the level of complexity of the MAN nroff macros in
> formatting ability.
MAN nroff would be overkill, as demonstrated by the restricted nroff
th
> From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> vern - i hope we can agree that i don't fall under the categorization of
>
> > those who have not yet found an opportunity to Contribute To The Standards
> > Process
>
> if we disagree on this, then discard this message.
No, you're one of those ot
> what i do care about is the fact that ASCII memos can't be reformatted. that
> is just plain silly.
Marshall, do you think tiny PDA displays will be with us for a
substantial amount of time? It seems to me that, with the rate
display technology moves forward at, by the time we all finish
arguin
I would very much like to see support for XML+ASCII in IETF.
Bora
At 2:33 PM -0800 2/26/01, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
>vern - i hope we can agree that i don't fall under the categorization of
>
>> those who have not yet found an opportunity to Contribute To The Standards
>> Process
>
>if we disa
Vernon,
You obviously enjoy drawing ASCII art, some of us don't.
Bora
vern - i hope we can agree that i don't fall under the categorization of
> those who have not yet found an opportunity to Contribute To The Standards
> Process
if we disagree on this, then discard this message.
i will tell you why i think it is a good idea that the I-D repository accept
XML ver
> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I would like to see the IETF continue to consider the ASCII text to be
>> the master.
>>
>> I would additionally like to see the secretariat accept drafts in some
> From: Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I would like to see the IETF continue to consider the ASCII
> text to be the master.
>
> I would additionally like to see the secretariat accept drafts
> in some TBD XML markup as well as a corresponding ASCII. The provided
> ASCII should match
I would like to see the IETF continue to consider the ASCII
text to be the master.
I would additionally like to see the secretariat accept drafts
in some TBD XML markup as well as a corresponding ASCII. The provided
ASCII should match that which the secretariat produces, likely by
providing
n.
Regards,
Graham Travers
* - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Huitema [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 4:47 PM
> To: graham.travers; Valdis.Kletnieks
> Cc: doug; ietf
> Subject: RE: HTML better
> ASCII is NOT understandable by people who can't read and/or
> speak languages which use the Latin alphabet. It is not
> understandable by them now, and it was not understandable 40
> years ago.
Uh? This is an argument against the english language, not an argument
againt the character set. I
TECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: HTML better for small PDAs
>
> << File: SMIME.txt >>
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:22:15 EST, Jeremy Foshee said:
> Valdis wrote:
> >Now, who was saying that you didn't need a DTD to understand the XML? ;)
>
> You don't. XML has the ability to stand on it's own if you desire.
Umm.. without a DTD, how do you interpret all the markup that was the POINT
of
>Actually, it *is* a valid argument - consider that hieroglyphs were
>unreadable until they found the Rosetta Stone. The media lasted, but the
>ability to parse didn't.
If we're going to stray onto the treacherous ice of logic here,
then I feel constrained to point out that ASCII, XML, and so
The way I think about it, the current "ascii" rule makes it hard for the
writer, moderately easy for the reader, and very easy for the archivist.
It is hard for the writer now, because we are mostly using wysiwig tools
that don't produce ascii very naturally. OTOH, it is not too hard -- for
exampl
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:52:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > 1) Was your millenia-old data *written in XML*, or was it *converted to*
> > XML
> > within the past 5 years?
> This is not a valid argument. Egyptian Hieroglyphs were not written
> in ASCII either !
Actually, it *is* a valid a
Just a few final observations, then I'll bug out of the discussion.
1. Some folks scoff at the idea of reading I-Ds and RFCs on a PDA, yet they think it's
necessary to accommodate those who would read them on 1950s-style teletypes or other
old, outdated equipment. We say that lines should be,
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:01:23 EST, you said:
>
> > I am not sure I agree with the statement that in 10 years XML will
> > be history. One of XML's greatest values is in the fact that it is a
> > good format for long-term archiving of writt
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 3:37 AM
> To: Doug Sauder
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: HTML better for small PDAs
>
>
> 1) Was your millenia-old data *written in XM
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:01:23 EST, you said:
> I am not sure I agree with the statement that in 10 years XML will
> be history. One of XML's greatest values is in the fact that it is a
> good format for long-term archiving of written material. Some very
> old material (several millenia old) is a
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Of course, the concept that we should redo all the RFCs into XML
> so they are
> more pleasing on a GameBoy-class display misses the point that rfc1.txt is
> still readable 32 years after being written, while both the XML and the
> display
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:53:56 EST, Doug Sauder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I read the entire XML-SOAP document on my PDA, and that convinced me
> that reading documents on a small device is doable. I would be happy to
> put lots of RFCs and I-Ds on my PDA and have them available even when I
> do
I read the entire XML-SOAP document on my PDA, and that convinced me that reading
documents on a small device is doable. I would be happy to put lots of RFCs and I-Ds
on my PDA and have them available even when I don't have a laptop around. However,
plain ASCII text, like the RFCs, looks pret
53 matches
Mail list logo
