[rfc-i] LaTeX proposal misunderstood

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Wed Mar 28 13:48:59 PDT 2012

No, you are trying to force me to do things your way and I am not going to.

I am not generating text using a markup language direct. I have to
have a tool that allows me to immediately see the consequences of what
I type. It does not have to be WYSIWYG but it can't be a raw markup

This is not an excuse to ram your markup language equivalent of ed, vi
or emacs down the rest of our throats.

If LaTeX had been chosen instead of SGML as the markup language of the
Web then your proposal would be sensible but Tim didn't and it isn't.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s at rad.com> wrote:
> You can enter LaTeX using any editor you choose. It is just text.
> You can compile the LaTeX source with the free and Open Source code available on every platform I have ever seen,
> or with any of a dozen commercial implementations.
> I personally use a commercial program called PCTeX, and co-workers of mine use uTeX and CMacTeX.
> Take a look at the TeX Users Group (TUG) web page
> and the Comprehensive TeX Archive Network (CTAN) repository to see the wealth of tools available.
> Y(J)S
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:hallam at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 22:08
> To: Yaakov Stein
> Cc: Peter Saint-Andre; rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] LaTeX proposal misunderstood
> 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
> process began.
> 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 3) LaTeX has been superseded by newer, more sophisticated, WYSIWYG tools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
>> 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/
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/

Website: http://hallambaker.com/

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list