[rfc-i] Resetting this format debate a bit
James M. Polk
jmpolk at cisco.com
Mon Mar 26 00:06:16 PDT 2012
I was objecting to two things:
- that there are only 3 main groups of similar positions (and I
suggested there was at least 1 more that many would be happy with for
a while at least),
- the proposal that it took too much storage space to have a viable
processor to print the RFCs.
At 06:47 PM 3/25/2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>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
> > it?
> > (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.
> > James
> >> 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
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
More information about the rfc-interest