At 07:22 PM 9/24/2008, Dave CROCKER wrote:
John, et al,
John C Klensin wrote:
I've been waiting to respond to your draft until there was more
discussion on the list but, apparently, either the draft or
other circumstances killed that discussion.
I, too, waited to comment on it and see what t
John, et al,
John C Klensin wrote:
I've been waiting to respond to your draft until there was more
discussion on the list but, apparently, either the draft or
other circumstances killed that discussion.
I, too, waited to comment on it and see what the reception was. However I
produced the
Dave,
I've been waiting to respond to your draft until there was more
discussion on the list but, apparently, either the draft or
other circumstances killed that discussion. During that time,
I've been deliberating whether to send a private note to you or
to post this to the list. Given that yo
At 00:30 28-08-2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>Read, search and produce, OK. Parse, no, unless you're joking.
>
>Parsing RFCs is incredibly difficult. If you doubt it, please write a
I'm sure it is. The point was that it would be more difficult if the
text has to be extracted from a PDF.
Than
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:04:02PM -0700,
SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 37 lines which said:
> Anyone can write tools without undue cost to read, parse, search and
> produce documents in that format.
Read, search and produce, OK. Parse, no, unless you're joking.
Parsing RFCs is in
Julian Reschke wrote:
>> I'm not saying [X]HTML RFCs are an inherently bad idea, just that
>> they're not as simple to get right as it might seem.
> That's true, but I would expect *less* discussions as compared to
> just using PDF (for everything).
For the now dead IONs the restriction was rou
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> ...
>> It sure it. It just turns out to be a terrible format for extracting
>> text as anything other than lines, and even then doesn't work
>> reliably with commonly-used tools
>> ...
>
> It's also a terrible format for reading documentation in a
Keith Moore wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> data URIs are available in 3 out of 4 major browsers, with IE8 adding
>> them as well.
>
> I thought IE8 had some fairly annoying limitations on their use?
Potentially. I didn't try.
> ...
>>> I'm not saying [X]HTML RFCs are an inherently bad idea, j
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm not saying [X]HTML RFCs are an inherently bad idea, just that
>> they're not as simple to get right as it might seem.
>
> That's true, but I would expect *less* discussions as compared to just
> using PDF (for everyt
Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> data URIs are available in 3 out of 4 major browsers, with IE8 adding
> them as well.
I thought IE8 had some fairly annoying limitations on their use?
>> format. But data: URLs are not as widely supported as we'd like. Nor
>> is MHTML. Having multiple files per docu
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> ...
>> It sure it. It just turns out to be a terrible format for extracting
>> text as anything other than lines, and even then doesn't work
>> reliably with commonly-used tools
>> ...
>
> It's also a terrible format for reading documentation in a W
Keith Moore wrote:
> Not clear.
>
> It might be that a small and well-chosen subset of [X]HTML, with strict
> checking to limit the kinds of tags and parameters used, and data: URLs
> for all images referenced from the main document, would be a decent RFC
data URIs are available in 3 out of 4 maj
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> ...
> It sure it. It just turns out to be a terrible format for extracting
> text as anything other than lines, and even then doesn't work
> reliably with commonly-used tools
> ...
It's also a terrible format for reading documentation in a Web Browser.
I believe the IETF a
At 4:45 PM -0400 8/26/08, Russ Housley wrote:
>It has already been done: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc97.pdf
The IETF has done lots of things that don't scale well to multiple tool sets.
>PDF is an ISO standard,
So is OOXML.
>and the RFC Editor has already set a
>precedent by using this for
--On Wednesday, 27 August, 2008 02:32 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russ Housley wrote:
>
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc97.pdf
>
> Yes, that was a famous case for friends of RFC 5198 :-)
>
> I think somebody had a printed copy and scanned it to
> fill a gap in the r
Russ Housley wrote:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc97.pdf
Yes, that was a famous case for friends of RFC 5198 :-)
I think somebody had a printed copy and scanned it to
fill a gap in the repository at least for PDF.
Now looking at it again, the last page was apparently
never ASCII. Or it
Russ Housley wrote:
> PDF is an ISO standard, and the RFC Editor has already set a
> precedent by using this format when they are unable to locate an
> electronic copy of a very old RFC.
Then, let's deploy CLNP, first.
CLNP is an ISO standard, and the RFC Editor has already set a
precedent by
At 15:03 26-08-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
>We've stuck with ASCII in the last many years because, in
>addition to being a very stable and widely-available format, it
>is easily accessible to tools that are widely-available and very
>simple. Diffs work. Grep works. Nearly mindless regular
>expre
--On Tuesday, 26 August, 2008 16:45 -0400 Russ Housley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has already been done:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc97.pdf
>
> PDF is an ISO standard, and the RFC Editor has already set a
> precedent by using this format when they are unable to locate
> an electro
It has already been done: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc97.pdf
PDF is an ISO standard, and the RFC Editor has already set a
precedent by using this format when they are unable to locate an
electronic copy of a very old RFC.
This seems like a fine format to capture images, pictures, glyphs,
Hi,
> > http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/RFC-PDF/index.html
I am not able to access this page. Any problem?
Thanks
dharani
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Dharani Vilwanathan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Doesnt WORD preserve it? I thought WORD works well for RFCs. OSPFv2
> RFC didnt print well, however.
I had the same problem with the same RFC (2328).
Some RFCs contain plenty of tabs, both in the ascii figures and in the
text itse
work on a plane, anywhere a active
>internet connection may not be an option.
>
> Some of us produce HTML documents that you can download. Much better than PDF;
>smaller, potentially more standard, and adaptable to your screen size.
Clarification: this was not a criticism of Keith's
ECTED]
> Subject: Re: RFCs in PDF
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Doesnt WORD preserve it? I thought WORD works well for RFCs.
> OSPFv2 RFC didnt print
> well, however.
>
> Thanks
> dharani
>
> Bora Akyol wrote:
>
> > The only way I have found on Win 2K to print
"Mortonson, Robert W" wrote:
> I find this most helpful. If only the ietf would do this for presentations instead
>of just html. Then one can put together a reliable collection that is completely
>portable for a meeting, conference, work on a plane, anywhere a active internet
>connection may
ent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 9:50 AM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RFCs in PDF
The only way I have found on Win 2K to print RFCs while preserving
formatting is to ps-print them from emacs running on Windows.
You can even print to a networked printer.
Bora
n has changed somewhat.
> > But just on a whim I decided to produce a set of RFCs in PDF and solicit
> > feedback about how useful they are.
> >
> > http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/RFC-PDF/index.html
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > p.s. Don't expect these to be any more beautiful than their originals -
> > the goal has been to reproduce them faithfully, not to pretty them up.
> >
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RFCs in PDF
At one time I was told by several folks that Windows users have a difficult
time dealing with RFCs because there is no program that ships with Windows
that can print RFCs while preserving page breaks. (of course, some people
might be content to view RFCs on a
esumably prefer hardcopy :)
>
> This was a few years ago, so perhaps this situation has changed somewhat.
> But just on a whim I decided to produce a set of RFCs in PDF and solicit
> feedback about how useful they are.
>
> http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/RFC-PDF/index.html
>
>
complaining
were in fact printer developers - who presumably prefer hardcopy :)
This was a few years ago, so perhaps this situation has changed somewhat.
But just on a whim I decided to produce a set of RFCs in PDF and solicit
feedback about how useful they are.
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/RFC
30 matches
Mail list logo
