Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:20:21 -0400

>  Date: 2005-04-06 10:03
>  From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>

> I can't understand why you basically say that nroff can be typed 
> manually, but XML requires an editor.
> 
> I've never used an XML editor and have.. what, a couple of dozen 
> drafts, many of them RFCs already.   I've used solely xml2rfc for 
> about 1.5 years now.  Nor do I have plans to use an XML editor.

It's partly a matter of directive/markup mechanism (while there are
certainly exceptions, most troff formatting macro directives do not
require balanced start/end markup, and while nesting can occur (e.g.
in lists), the bulk of formatting (paragraphs and section headings)
directives are not nested, whereas XML, like other SGML-based formats,
requires balanced markup tags, many of which have particular nesting
requirements, and the balancing/nesting can quickly become unmanageable
for the human editor w/o format-specific software editor support).

It's also partly a matter of keeping the directives largely in the
background (mostly not balanced/nested, with simple syntax, and terse)
vs. overwhelming the text (by baroque syntax and verbose, balanced,
nested markup).  One thing that typical *ML editors seem to do is to
try to hide that otherwise overwhelming markup by representing it more
tersely or by moving it to a different part of the display.  Personally
I find it simpler to use a format that is terse and relatively
unobtrusive in the first place.

As an example, consider writing a paragraph using troff macros vs.
using XML with an XML editor and with a text editor.  With troff
macros, one types a directive, which is terse (typically 3 characters
including the dot) and proceeds to type the paragraph text. At the
end of the paragraph, nothing special, just move on to another
paragraph, a section heading, a diagram; whatever.  Using XML with
a text editor, there's a (relatively) verbose markup tag, which
itself requires balanced, matching delimiters, then paragraph text
(all the while mentally keeping track of the fact that an opening
tag has been entered and must be closed).  At the end of the paragraph,
before considering what content is next, a matching closing tag (again
somewhat verbose and requiring balanced, matching delimiters) must be
typed.  Using an XML-specific editor basically substitutes manually
typing tags by a search for a pointing device, selection from a menu,
etc. (avoiding typos while entering long tags, but interrupting the
mental flow of writing content to search for menu items, etc.).
 
>  Date: 2005-04-06 10:04
>  From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>

> I am producing XML with a text editor as well. Plugins allow 
> one-keystroke syntax checks (== run it through an XML parser) or preview 
> of HTML (== display it in a browser with XSLT).

The need for external programs (because the format has strict balancing
and nesting requirements) is a show-stopper on some platforms (e.g.
PDAs).

The bottom line is that the goal is to produce properly formatted
documents.  So long as that goal is met (N.B.!), any tool that does
the job and is suitable for the author(s) is fine.  For those that
wish to use XML, fine -- enjoy!  But my concern, particularly regarding
a document with the formidable word "Requirements" in its title, is
that there should also be provision for those who prefer to use
troff/nroff.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:27:24 -0400

On 4/6/2005 11:20, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote:
> Using an XML-specific editor basically substitutes manually

I agree that balanced tags make editing more awkward but the above is
a caricature.  As an example I rarely hunt for the mouse when doing
xml2rfc XML.  You need a better editor.

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:45:39 -0600

On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <[email-masked]> wrote:

> [...] my concern, particularly regarding

I am going to add the following to the ID Submission draft:

	The set of requirements in this document is not meant to be
	comprehensive or final. Other IETF documents or procedures may
       require additional functionality from the Toolset. For example,
	it is possible that the Toolset will be required to handle
       draft source formats other than plain text and XML.

I think the above represents current Tools team consensus on this issue.

As others have pointed out, nroff (or MS Word, etc.) fans can still submit
their drafts using the Toolset (as currently defined); they just will not
submit their sources.

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:26:21 -0400

> Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF        DraftSubmission Toolset' to Informational RFC)
>  Date: 2005-04-06 09:12
>  From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>

> The free site I found says "voting"; of course, what the IETF
> can use such things for is only straw polls. But in a case
> like the present one, I think that is a reasonable way of
> finding out what the centre of gravity of opinion is.
> 
> In ASCII art:
>                    /\
> Consensus:   ____/  \___
> 
>                        /\
> Rough Consensus  ____/  \___/\___
> 
> 
> Badly phrased question: ___/\____/\____/\____/\___
> 
> (I'm reasonably serious about that)

Maybe -- maybe not.

Here's what one IETF WG chair had to say (where "this topic" refers
to a specific issue under discussion in the WG):
----------------------
On the topic of voting: Especially on this topic, I think voting 
would be stupid. The decision is about rough consensus. One screaming 
person does not indicate that there is no rough consensus, but one or 
two well-reasoned arguments against a screaming huge crowd does. And 
a huge number of "I'd prefer X, but I couldn't care less" votes 
versus 2 or 3 well-argued "X will spell doom for the Internet, and Y 
will save it" votes *is* rough consensus for Y over X. So voting 
generally doesn't help me decide one way or the other that there is 
rough consensus.
-----------------------

In short, quality of argument trumps (if the chair is chairing)
quantity.  Voting (incl. as "straw polls") only measures quantity, not
quality.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:19:20 +0200

I don't disagree. Counting heads is a blunt instrument for subtle
questions. But there are cases where it's informative.

     Brian