[rfc-i] Resetting this format debate a bit
hallam at gmail.com
Sun Mar 25 16:47:41 PDT 2012
I can't quite grasp where the conversation has headed.
RFCs don't print without hassle on Macs or Windows. They didn't print
on VMS either.
Now if the 'solution' on the Mac is to use Word, well why wouldn't we
just use the features of Word. Or is this a competition to find the
worst possible outcome?
[No I am not suggesting we use Word, just pointing out the absurdity
of the proposal]
I have only a 120Gb SSD on this MBA and 40Gb of that is a Windows partition.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 7:16 PM, James M. Polk <jmpolk at cisco.com> wrote:
> At 05:12 PM 3/25/2012, Tim Bray wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM, James M. Polk <jmpolk at cisco.com> wrote:
>> > IMO you're overreaching on #1 by making it seem as if it's all of #1,
>> > and
>> > nothing but all that's in #1. In other words, the way you've phrased
>> > it,
>> > it's like you're saying:
>> Fair enough. I thought it was obvious that #1 couldn't couldn't be
>> achieved in one fell swoop, and would require extended stepwise work.
> yet it was written to be overwhelming, which denotes a sense of bias, which
> shouldn't exist if we can help it IMO.
>> I've also volunteered to pitch in should there be agreement to start
>> such an effort. I also predict a fair degree of difficulty achieving
>> consensus in this effort, perhaps even as much trouble as it might
>> take to achieve consensus on appropriate energy policies.
>> > Apply that philosophy to our discussion on your #1. If we don't drill
>> > now,
>> > we're only putting off what we know we need to go after. That said, #1
>> > as
>> > written, is not what I've been talking about with a lot of folks over
>> > the
>> > years, they simply want non-ASCII art, which is far far less than how #1
>> > is
>> > written now. A *LOT* of folks would be happy to get past the ASCII art
>> > issue
>> > - which we all agree is a pain in the $%& to draw in, and can't
>> > represent
>> > what we want to draw in anything more than simple box diagrams and a few
>> > created arrows without tools.
>> Actually, we don't all agree. I think the absence of diagrams in IETF
>> specifications has historically been a strength not a weakness. I
>> really think you're underestimating the difficulty of getting
>> consensus on document-format issues.
> I disagree that words are better than a really good diagram with words. The
> burden is on the WG to make sure the authors/editors make the diagram fit
> the text surrounding said diagram. To not do so is pure laziness on
> everyone's part within that WG, from Gen-Art, any directorate reviews and
> the IESG. It all starts with the WG though.
> I fully admit bad art is bad art, but that's different than saying everyone
> else should not be able to use diagram SW to create good diagrams because it
> possibly can lead to confusion. That's fairly a repressive ideology, isn't
> (no attack intended)
>> > BTW - regarding #3, since when does it take a "lot of disk space" to
>> > load
>> > what would be WORD for a Mac? A couple of hundred MBs is generally
>> > _nothing_
>> Sigh, I would have agreed up until recently, when a lot of us moved to
>> Macs equipped with SSDs which are amazingly fast but cruelly limited
>> in size compared to what they replaced.
> it's still less than 200MB on an SSD that's likely over 160GB... my math
> says that's not just a small, but a really small percentage. I think also,
> that we all have a bunch of applications and or data files that take up that
> much storage space without continual usage.
> The cost is another matter.
>> This is admittedly probably a
>> temporary condition.
>> I will admit to having negative feelings about having to purchase any
>> commercial software from anyone to accomplish the simple goal of
>> printing a spec properly, particularly when I have no other use for
>> such products and can print lots of other complex technical documents
>> all the time without requiring any such tools. -Tim
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest