Subject: RE: PDF, Postscript, and "normative" versions (was: Re: Baby Steps (was RE: Alternative formats for IDs))

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:28:22 +0100

> Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the observation
> that, each time the "we really need pictures and fancy
> formatting and need them frequently" argument comes up, the vast
> majority of those who make it most strongly are people whose
> contributions to the IETF -- in designer, editor, or other
> leadership roles-- have been fairly minimal.  

This fascinates me too...

With experience, I believe most people learn that the strict
ASCII format used for RFC's is actually a strong feature of 
our ways of working. When I wrote my first drafts, I also
believed non-ASCII graphics were needed and I made multiple
versions (one TXT and one PS) of each draft, but I do not
waste my time on that anymore since I have learned that I
can manage very well without non-ASCII graphics.

/L-E

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

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:41:58 +0000

>This fascinates me too...
That is a completly inapproriate response to the issue at hand
- in many dimensions.

- Stewart

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:40:37 -0500

--On Thursday, 12 January, 2006 12:28 +0100 "Lars-Erik Jonsson
\\(LU/EAB\\)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> formatting and need them frequently" argument comes up, the
>> vast majority of those who make it most strongly are people
>> whose contributions to the IETF -- in designer, editor, or
>> other leadership roles-- have been fairly minimal.  
> 

While I agree with you, I should stress that the authors of the
current proposal have been much more in touch with IETF work and
much more active than many of their predecessors.  We also owe
them thanks for actually preparing a proposal in I-D form rather
than simply complaining about our antiquated methods on the
mailing list.  Most of the point I was trying to make was
precisely the one you make, more appropriately, above:
increasing experience within the IETF and with our style of
developing and working on documents (not just publishing them)
tends to cause both patience and respect for the ASCII graphics
and formats to rise.  Experience from other standards bodies or
similar entities that work in different ways may or may not be a
good basis for inference.

best,
   john

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:33:51 -0500

On 1/12/06, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> and formats to rise.

I'm surprised folks are apologizing for the initial impression ASCII
text gives, and that people feel MS Word or PDF would represent some
sort of advance. I find both of those formats difficult to use, and my
reaction when I see a spec in PDF or MS Word is to assume the
responsible organization is clueless. The rare specification requiring
elaborate illustrations would be better as HTML with a liberal
sprinkling of fragment identifiers.

--

Robert Sayre