Subject: Re: Source Format of RFCs

From: "Tim Kehres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 03:58:50 +0800

>> The intent of my message was not to suggest scrapping the ASCII form of
the
>> documents, but rather to suggest an alternative method of publishing the
>> information (PDF) that might be more useful to many.   Like any solution,
no
>> matter what is chosen, it will not be perfect for everyone unfortunately.
>
>This has been tried and it just doesn't work.
>
>The problem with this approach is that implicit in it is the notion that a
tool
>can work primarily in some very rich format but then turn around and
produce
>reasonable text.

>
>But in practice this doesn't happen. The text output always ends up being a
>poor relation to the primary (to the production system) format, usually to
the
>point where it is completely unusable. It then isn't a question of the lack
of
>perfection, it is a question of not having usable text at all.

As has been pointed out by others, other organizations are using other tools
in practice that can produce rich text or better without problems.   IMHO,
in the area of documentation, the world in general may have left this group
in the dust when it comes to using better (more readable) technologies,
which is unfortunate.   The real need to perform fast searches through the
entire RFC library is quite useful, I agree, but I suspect not the only or
primary criteria that should be considered in coming up with a format (or
formats) for the documents.

>Ahem, you might want to try rendering significant amounts of very old, very
>poorly produced PostScript on modern devices sometime. I have, and the
results
>weren't good.

So, what's your point?   I've got tons of ASCII files that I can say the
same about.   Poorly constructed objects, regardless of their type are
problematic.   When's the last time you tried to print a UNIX manual page
produced with nroff on a standard printer, that did not understand
backspaces?   The underlining throughout most of these documents makes for
an unusable printed output.   Do you want more examples - they are easy to
come up with as well.  Does this make ASCII bad - not at all!

>Old PostScript goes so far as to sometimes include 68000 machine code to
>download to the printer to fix some bug or other. Unfortunately such
commands
>are rarely properly conditionalized (why bother when the only PostScript
>printer was the LaserWriter), so when presented to newer devices cause
>the operation to fail.

This is also fine and good, but what is it's relavence to PDF or other
alternatives?

No technology by itself is guaranteed to produce good results by the sheer
fact that you are utilizing it.   This is the same for ASCII as it is for
PDF, postscript, HTML, or anything else you can come up with.   There has to
be some standard structure to the documents that are uniform and
consistently applied.   This is the reason that the ASCII versions of the
documents are usable - the same could be applied to other methods (even,
*gasp*, Word formatted files).

Best Regards,

-- Tim

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:28:58 -0500

More and more in IETF circles, I'm hearing arguments of the form
"Other organizations are doing X..."

Whenever anyone says such a thing, I think of a sign that I saw 
many years ago.  It read:

	Mediocrity is excellence at pursuing the mean.

The point being, if you want avoid mediocrity, you don't automatically
follow the examples of other organizations... especially those less 
successful than your own.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:28:58 -0500

Keith

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 13:08:28 -0800 (PST)

> > poor relation to the primary (to the production system) format, usually to the
> > point where it is completely unusable. It then isn't a question of the lack of

> in practice that can produce rich text or better without problems.

First of all, even if this were true it would be irrelevant. Another
organization's ability to produce documents solely in some rich format has
nothing to do with the matter at hand -- production of documents  in both plain
and rich text forms.

But I have also questioned the assertion that this has been done "without
problems". In at least one of the cited cases of this being done "without
problems" I know for a _fact_ that there were many hideous problems, problems
which continue to this day, problems which continue to cost both myself and
many others countless hours of wasted time, problems which the current RFC 
scheme does not have.

> IMHO,

And in my opinion this group is one of the few that is exercising sound
judglement in not leaping on all the latest bandwagons and totally screwing
their user base as a result.

> > results weren't good.

> problematic.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. An object that worked poorly at the
outset is quite different from something that worked fine 10 years ago and is
now totally unusable. Your example text files were problematic when they were
produced, and continue to be problematic now. My PostScript documents, on the
other hand, worked fine when they were produced. But they don't work now.

> When's the last time you tried to print a UNIX manual page
> backspaces?

Now you're talking about something I regard to be another rich text format.
It certainly isn't plain text.

And like most rich text formats, you need a tool to deal with it. But even so,
the tool needed here is trivial -- I could write one in a couple of minutes if
I didn't have one handy already (which I do).

Now try doing the same thing with old PostScript. Or PDF files.

> > download to the printer to fix some bug or other. Unfortunately such commands

> This is also fine and good, but what is it's relavence to PDF or other

PDF is alreadying showing itself to be less stable than PostScript in the
medium term, even though there is for all intents and purposes just one viewer
for it. This does not bode well for its ability to survive in the long term
with many of the same problems PostScript has had.

> *gasp*, Word formatted files).

This is precisely my point. We have been given, not once but repeatedly,
assurances that such structures, restrictions, and so on, once defined, will be
used. We had them with PostScript. We had them with text/enriched, and we have
them with HTML.

And in every single case it turns out that the assurances aren't met. The
PostScript isn't portable. The corresponding text output isn't usable. The
text/enriched is clutted up with meaningless garbage, making it unreadable
without a viewer. And you don't want me to start in on HTML...

I'm sorry, but your saying that such a solution will actually work flies
in the face of extensive experience to the contrary.

Tim, I used to believe as you do, and I argued very vehemently for changes to
the RFC system to move to what I believed were superior formats. But after
many years of experience with this stuff, I found out that I was totally
wrong, and Jon Postel was right. Hardly surprising, I suppose...

				Ned

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 13:08:28 -0800 (PST)

Ned

---

From: "mark.paton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 06:33:26 -0000

Keith,
Complacency is the road to ruin ( an old Chinese proverb)

Put simply it means sit on your arse all day and the only "success " you have is the one in your own mind!

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 01 December 1998 20:29
To: Tim Kehres
Cc: Ned Freed; Keith Moore; Bruce Balden; Dunlap, Randy; [email-masked]
Subject: other organizations do this

Keith

---

From: "mark.paton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 06:33:26 -0000

Keith,

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 01 December 1998 20:29
To: Tim Kehres
Cc: Ned Freed; Keith Moore; Bruce Balden; Dunlap, Randy; [email-masked]
Subject: other organizations do this

Keith

---

From: "Herman R. Silbiger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 08:47:21 -0500

Which is why the ITU doesn't use ASCII text.

Sorry, couldn't resist this.

Herman

---

From: "Herman R. Silbiger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 08:47:21 -0500

Herman

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:03:07 +0000 (GMT)

> Sorry, couldn't resist this.

or, alternatively, why say Microsoft defines its own file formats for
everything. 

It all hinges on your definition of 'successful'.

L.

> > successful than your own.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:03:07 +0000 (GMT)

L.