[rfc-i] LaTeX proposal misunderstood

Yaakov Stein yaakov_s at rad.com
Wed Mar 28 01:06:19 PDT 2012


For what it is worth, the misconceptions I heard were:
1) this doesn't add anything vis-à-vis xml2rfc (first comment at the mike)
2) this is simply a new method of producing a normative output format, and I didn't pin down what output format I propose
3) LaTeX has been superseded by newer, more sophisticated, WYSIWYG tools
4) TeX can only be written by uber-geeks

Y(J)S

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter at stpeter.im] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 09:54
To: Yaakov Stein
Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] LaTeX proposal misunderstood

On 3/28/12 8:38 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:

> After hearing from several people after the BOF yesterday,
> 
> I believe that perhaps I was not clear enough.

I thought your presentation was quite clear, so I'm wondering what
misunderstandings you have encountered.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list