Subject: Re: HTML better for small PDAs

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:54:18 -0700 (MST)

> From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>

>   I would like to see the IETF continue to consider the ASCII
> text to be the master.
>
>   I would additionally like to see the secretariat accept drafts
> in some TBD XML markup as well as a corresponding ASCII. The provided
> ASCII should match that which the secretariat produces, likely by
> providing the XML->ASCII formatter on a web site, and basing it open
> some open source implementation.
>
>   Authors should provide the ASCII because they should have proofread
> that version as well.

The dual Postscript and ASCII RFC's show that such a plan is likely to
cause more harm than good.  That dual track compromise sounded good at
the time, but turned out poorly.  There are other precedents showing
dual languages don't work regardless of good intentions, from the DOD
equivalents of the early RFC's to the ITU's labors with natural language
translations.  There is also the truth that every experienced programmer
knows, that two definitions of one thing absolutely never agree.

If the ASCII version of an RFC is complete, then the XML alternate is
not needed.  If the alternate is needed even only for "illustration",
then the ASCII version is incomplete and so wrong.  As others have
said "incomplete" as seen by people who neither write RFC's nor
implement protocols is completely irrelevant and inadmissible.

As someone else pointed out, the crux of this recurring thread
is the conflict between those who care about the form of RFC's
including whether they use "modern technology" and those who care
about the contents and function of RFC's as definitions of protocols.

Absolutely all of us have ideas for improving of the form of RFC's, but
it's a lot harder to say something useful about RFC contents.  Thus,
those who have not yet found an opportunity to Contribute To The Standards
Process see opportunities in "implementing modern text preparation in
the IETF" (with "implement" as in "implement TCP/IP in a corporate
network").  It seems clear that some of those who are adamant about
replacing boring old ASCII are more readers than authors or editors.
Worse, I suspect a few have not spent much time reading the ASCII stuff
and would read little in any format, not matter how modern.

I've noticed the resounding silence of some who have made substantive
contributions that might facilitate a transition to using XML for ID's.
Why do is that?  Could it be that they distinguish tools for writing
(e.g. XML authoring tools) from the form and utility of an RFC?

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:26:12 -0500

>>>>> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> I would like to see the IETF continue to consider the ASCII text to be
    >> the master.
    >> 
    >> I would additionally like to see the secretariat accept drafts in some
    >> TBD XML markup as well as a corresponding ASCII. The provided ASCII
    >> should match that which the secretariat produces, likely by providing
    >> the XML->ASCII formatter on a web site, and basing it open some open
    >> source implementation.
    >> 

    Vernon> The dual Postscript and ASCII RFC's show that such a plan is
    Vernon> likely to cause more harm than good.  That dual track compromise

  I agree with your analysis. That is because postscript can do anything
ASCII can do. {Microsoft Word, latex, HTML and DocBook can do anything ASCII
can do} 

  I'm not certain that this would be the case for a sufficiently constrained
DTD. Something at the level of complexity of the MAN nroff macros in
formatting ability.

    Vernon> Absolutely all of us have ideas for improving of the form of
    Vernon> RFC's, but it's a lot harder to say something useful about RFC
    Vernon> contents.  Thus, those who have not yet found an opportunity to
    Vernon> Contribute To The Standards Process see opportunities in
    Vernon> "implementing modern text preparation in the IETF" (with
    Vernon> "implement" as in "implement TCP/IP in a corporate network").  It
    Vernon> seems clear that some of those who are adamant about replacing
    Vernon> boring old ASCII are more readers than authors or editors.
    Vernon> Worse, I suspect a few have not spent much time reading the ASCII
    Vernon> stuff and would read little in any format, not matter how modern.

  I tend to agree with your comments.

    Vernon> I've noticed the resounding silence of some who have made
    Vernon> substantive contributions that might facilitate a transition to
    Vernon> using XML for ID's.  Why do is that?  Could it be that they
    Vernon> distinguish tools for writing (e.g. XML authoring tools) from the
    Vernon> form and utility of an RFC?

  I've done all my drafts in DocBook with an "sgml2rfc" translator that
was cooked up. I know others that have done the same. More recently, I've
been using an "rfc.el", but I may go back to sgml2rfc. Given that I already
have something in SGML, the info is already there.

   :!mcr!:            |  Solidum Systems Corporation, http://www.solidum.com
   Michael Richardson |For a better connected world,where data flows faster<tm>
 Personal: http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html
	mailto:[email-masked]	mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:33:23 -0800

vern - i hope we can agree that i don't fall under the categorization of

> Process

if we disagree on this, then discard this message.

i will tell you why i think it is a good idea that the I-D repository accept
XML versions of drafts, whilst retaining the .txt versions as the "official"
ones (assuming that the term "official internet-draft" isn't oxymoronic).

the text format we use for I-Ds and RFCs is final form. it works great for
printing. it works pretty well for viewing on a nice screen. it doesn't work
well on a small screen.

the advantage of using something like XML is that it is an intermediate
form. this means that i can write programs that convert it to different
final forms, e.g., something that looks nice on a pda. today i flew from
sacramento to boston, rather than carrying around 500 pages of recent I-Ds,
i loaded them onto my ipaq. although i avoided a trip to the chiropractor
for my back, i now have to see him for the rsi i got from having to scroll
left-right in addition to up-down.

i don't know if html is better for small PDAs, and frankly, i don't care.
what i do care about is the fact that ASCII memos can't be reformatted. that
is just plain silly.

so, i suggest a simple experiment: let the I-D repository store alternative
versions of drafts in addition to the .txt versions. try this out for 9
months and see if people find it useful or not. is this really asking so
much?

/mtr

---

From: Bora Akyol <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:43:58 -0800

Vernon,

You obviously enjoy drawing ASCII art, some of us don't.

Bora

---

From: Bora Akyol <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:45:19 -0800

I would very much like to see support for XML+ASCII in IETF.

Bora

---

From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:57:17 -0700

> what i do care about is the fact that ASCII memos can't be reformatted. that

Marshall, do you think tiny PDA displays will be with us for a
substantial amount of time? It seems to me that, with the rate
display technology moves forward at, by the time we all finish
arguing over this the current crop of postage-stamp size PDA
displays will be ancient history.

There's more to this than just ID's/RFCs. Pretty damned near
everything has to be reformatted to fit on those itty-bitty screens,
and that just isn't going to happen.  Consumers will demand (and
get) readable displays. I really think we're better of fixing this
problem in hardware.

--lyndon

---

From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:14:27 -0800

> get) readable displays. I really think we're better of fixing this

the hardware problem is the eyes and the hands. i use a pda because i can
put it in my hip pocket. that's just not going to happen with a screen that
half-size or full-size.

yes, most things have to be retrofitted, but that's okay. i don't seem to
have any problem with calendaring, contacts, todo lists, and so on.

the 8.5x11 format has many fine properties to recommend it, but it also
inadequate in some areas, and i don't think it's unreasonable that people
want an alternative solution in that case.

/mtr

---

From: Bora Akyol <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:56:17 -0800

>get) readable displays. I really think we're better of fixing this

Are your pockets getting any bigger, I don't see anyone carrying a 
laptop holster on their belts?

The reason that PDA screens are small are because PDAs are small. 
Apple Newton (which I still own) had a larger screen but it wasn't as 
convenient as a Palm to carry around.

I have read reasonable size text docs on both and it is really not that bad.

Bora

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:34:43 -0500

> displays will be ancient history.

Heads Up Displays.

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:53:41 -0700

> put it in my hip pocket. that's just not going to happen with a screen that

You're thinking too traditionally. Displays will decouple from the
processor (think Bluetooth). The "CPU" will holster on your belt,
and the A4 sized thin-film display will fold up to fit in your pocket.
And pixel density will increase to approach that of paper. (At 300 DPI
you can shrink the font enough to get the better part of a 60x72 character
page onto even todays sized PDA displays if you display in landscape.)

Or maybe the technology will be something else. The point is that
the display technology _will_ be there, and it will be there soon.
(Soon enough that current PDA limitations aren't a good enough
justification - IMO - for the sort of changes we're talking about
making.)

--lyndon

---

From: Bora Akyol <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:27:09 -0800 (PST)

I guess I have to hold up this "letter" sized paper display and try to
write on it at the same time.

I'll believe it when I see it. I saw the article on this topic in MIT Tech
review a few months ago, but they were saying that this technology is
years ahead. In the meantime, I will keep on using my Pilot (oops Palm).

Bora