[rfc-i] New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearlove at baesystems.com
Tue Jun 24 06:48:54 PDT 2014

I already agreed with you it needed a tool. But all tools that work then produce the same output. It doesn't depend on tool intelligence.

As for "I'm not that interested", can I refer you to your own words about putting words in other people's mouths. And it's a really strange paragraph to make that comment about. I was saying what we want is RFCs easily usable by anyone, including people who haven't (yet) heard of the IETF. Most of us started somewhere like that.

But let's suppose I had the skillset and the time to contribute. You've already said nothing is going to change, so why would I?

(I'm now going to go and do something else.)

Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove at baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke at gmx.de] 
Sent: 24 June 2014 14:39
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Ted Lemon
Cc: Paul Kyzivat; rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.

On 2014-06-24 15:34, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> " If you're really interested you may want to look at PrinceXML which"
> Is exactly the wrong mindset. We want someone who has heard about X, puts X into Google, and finds an RFC. (We'll assume it's a well-written RFC that is what he wants.) Unfortunately that search may not get the ideal, the tools page. But let's assume he's lucky and does.

OK, that sounds to me like you're not *that* interested.

> Maybe HTML is what he wants to read online. There's a  link for that. 
> Maybe he wants to print it. He knows that his browser is flaky on 
> printing (*) - but there's a PDF link, that will do. He looks at the 
> text version, but it isn't really offering him anything. Though when 
> reading online it and PDF are similar. (I actually usually read text 
> rather than HTML or PDF online, but that's due to familiarity.)
> What he certainly isn't going to do is look at PrinceXML or anything else.
> (*) [Off topic.] You say " It may be true that print support isn't a priority anymore for browser developers". Was it ever?

Right now the RFC Editor only provides plain text. Show me how to print that properly, without additional tools.

tools.ietf.org currently offers additional formats (for people lucky enough to arrive there). I'm pretty sure this will continue to be the case, except that it won't be the paginated-plain-text-converted-to-HTML-or-PDF anymore. But yes, it will print.

Best regards, Julian

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list