Subject: RE: Alternative formats for IDs

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 12:45:40 -0500

Ted,

	If that happens, don't you think that we would be
obliged to object to their claims?

	IMO, such claims would be easily defeated on the 
same basis as most "look & feel" claims have been beaten
in the past.  In fact, I am not aware of issues with any
sort of rights assertion relative to existing converters
for MS (or Adobe) document formats.

--
Eric 

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> On Behalf Of Theodore Ts'o
--> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:03 PM
--> To: John C Klensin
--> Cc: [email-masked]
--> Subject: Re: Alternative formats for IDs
--> 
--> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 02:59:34PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
--> > 	(2) Development of a converter between the MS-XML output
--> > 	of Word Pro 2003 and the XML input of RFC 2629bis so
--> > 	that xml2rfc and its friends could take responsibility
--> > 	for final formatting.  Note that, if the converter were
--> > 	two-way, you could edit happily in Word and others could
--> > 	edit happily in XML and both could interwork.  However,
--> > 	as with the above, I think this solution would rapidly
--> > 	deteriorate into uselessness unless there were a
--> > 	commitment to produce new versions as new versions of
--> > 	Office appeared -- at least until Microsoft stabilizes
--> > 	and documents their XML formats.
--> 
--> And even when Microsoft stablizes their XML formats, each person who
--> wants to use the converter will have to apply individually to
--> Microsoft for a patent license, for which Microsoft has apparently
--> reserved the right to deny in the future for any reason.  Sweet....
--> 
--> 						- Ted
--> 
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> [email-masked]
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--> 

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

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:41:17 -0500

> for MS (or Adobe) document formats.

It is my understanding that Microsoft have been granted one or more
patents relating to their use of XML in their new, incompatible MS
Office document formats that will be used in their upcoming MS Office
release, such that writing programs which manipulate said propietary
XML schemas may require patent licenses.

Whether or not such patent claims are bogus or not, and whether or not
the US Patent Office has their heads in some very dark orifice is
somewhat out of scope of this mailing list, I think.  I just wanted to
warn people that there may be some patent issues relating to working
with the new MS Office XML formats.  And while the Microsoft has
offered some "free" patent licenses for their patents, said patent
rights are not sublicensable, so each end user who wants to use a
converter would have to go on bended knee to Microsoft and request
their own individual patent license.

This should be a very strong argument to not touch the new MS Word
document formats with a ten foot pole, IMHO.

						- Ted

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 15:16:18 -0500

I've been following this thread and I'm a bit surprised that no one has 
suggested Open Document Format:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/faq.php

Although it's still pretty new, it is fully documented, useable by editors 
available on multiple platforms, and appears to be free of any significant 
encumbrances.  

It's probably premature to condider this today, but I don't imagine that the 
alternative format discussion is going to resolve itself anytime soon.  

Scott Kitterman

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:36:09 +0100

On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 03:16:18PM -0500,
 Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 18 lines which said:

> I've been following this thread and I'm a bit surprised that no one
> has suggested Open Document Format:

If we use a XML format, why the very large and complexe (700 pages)
OpenDocument and not "our" RFC 2629?

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 23:09:59 +0100

> OpenDocument and not "our" RFC 2629?

Indeed. Although, at some point of time we'll have also to realize that 
there most people when they say "RFC2629" they really mean RFC2629bis. 
So, sooner or later, we'll have to start work on a proper spec revision.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 08:16:24 -0500

> So, sooner or later, we'll have to start work on a proper spec revision.

As I understand it, one of the major concerns of the people pushing for 
alternative formats is a desire to be able to include drawings and diagrams 
with something other than ASCII art.  

I don't believe that XML does much to help that.  

If one is worried about things like including pictures, diagrams, revision 
marks, etc. then I think looking into something like Open Document Format 
would make a lot more sense than considering a proprietary format like MS 
Word.

OTOH, if ASCII is good enough, then I guess there's nothing to worry about.  I 
don't have enough IETF experience to have a strong opinion either way.  I 
just think that if alternatives are going to be looked at, then ODF ought to 
be one of them.

Scott Kitterman

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:21:11 -0800 (PST)

> I don't believe that XML does much to help that.

It does in the same way HTML does i.e. you can create separate drawing
as jpg or png and include it in the document along with information as
to how it would fit in that document. That means that if we use XML as
publication or submission format, then data submitted for one draft/rfc
can be more then just document itself (probably some rfc editor tools
would need to be modified to take care of managing this too).

In general it is a good idea to keep just document (i.e. it includes
embedded pictures) for at least publication as official standard so
I believe most appropriate is indeed to support PDF/A as official
publication format but keep the source (XML & pictures) available for
those who need it as well.

> would make a lot more sense than considering a proprietary format like MS

You probably missed it, but I did in fact say in my earlier post that if
we do want to consider direct "editor" format,then only good choice would 
be opendoc. The problem is that it is still relatively new and not enough
programs and tools are available that support it on all platforms (but it
is already supported in more systems then MS Word can!). That will surely 
change in the next few years if the format proves itself.

Ultimately what I believe will happen is that there would be free (and
commercial) tools to convert from MSWord XML (if that format stabilizes) 
to OpenDoc and back without any loss (at least as far as document text
and its presentation) and so this means that those who want to use Word 
will be able to do it easily.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]