[rfc-i] LaTeX proposal misunderstood

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Wed Mar 28 14:50:09 PDT 2012


Editing source representations is inelegant and outdated by 25 years. 

While the specific editor isn't a focal point, not having any structural editors is a nonstarter IMO 

Joe

On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s at rad.com> wrote:

> Phillip
> 
> I am not trying to ram anything down anyone's throat,
> I was try to convince people to try an elegant and advantageous system,
> just as I was willing to try an inelegant and limited xml2rfc system.
> 
> I am not trying to ram anything down anyone's throat,
> but ask for others not to ram down mine various arcane and clumsy variants of SGML,
> including MathML, SVG, and xml2rfc.
> 
> I am not trying to ram anything down anyone's throat,
> but if we decide to use the WYSIWYG input method that MOST people use,
> then we will have to adopt Word.
> 
> I am not trying to ram anything down anyone's throat,
> but if we decide to allow everyone to use any input method they are used to,
> then we will have to adopt ink on paper as our output format.
> 
> I am not trying to ram anything down anyone's throat,
> and from the beginning I stated that I didn't believe that anything would change
> and that the IETF will be still be using stone tools and ASCII art  
> years after laymen routinely use direct brain-computer communications. 
> 
> 
> Y(J)S
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:hallam at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 22:49
> To: Yaakov Stein
> Cc: Peter Saint-Andre; rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] LaTeX proposal misunderstood
> 
> 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
> language.
> 
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mailing list