[rfc-i] LaTeX proposal misunderstood
hallam at gmail.com
Wed Mar 28 13:08:03 PDT 2012
It sounds to me that your proposal is an editor war flame rather than
something that can be accepted.
Having people what editing format or tool I am going to use is an
absolute non starter. I think we should decide that an absolute
requirement here is that any new format must have been supported by
abundant editing tools (not just one piece of crapware) before this
The problem here is that people are leaving the IETF and taking
business elsewhere because they don't want the controlling,
patronizing approach that it has been taking.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s at rad.com> wrote:
> 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 3) LaTeX has been superseded by newer, more sophisticated, WYSIWYG tools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
> -----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 Saint-Andre
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest