Hi Yaakov,
on 2006-01-01 06:36 Yaakov Stein said the following:
Happy new year to everyone.
I would like to call your attention to a new ID
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt> .
This ID is the result of discussions here on the general list,
and proposes the use of formats other than plain ASCII
for IDs and RFCs. In particular, it proposes the allowance
of diagrams other than "ASCII-art" as normative.
The authors felt that further discussion on the list would not be
productive,
but that the writing of an ID might force more serious consideration.
We furthermore suggest that this ID be advanced as a BCP
under the process for process change.
I've read the ID, and have some comments.
Overall: I personally think this is a bad idea. I'd have much more
sympathy for a proposal to introduce PDF/A as a normative output format,
and leave it at that; the introduction of a non-open non-standard format
(MS-Word) as a normative output format seems like a huge step backwards.
Specific comments and questions:
3. Proposal for Process Change
In addition to allowing the basic ASCII text as a normative format,
the authors propose that the I-D editor and RFC editor support three
other normative input/output formats:
a) MS word (input/output)
b) XML (input only)
c) PDF (output only)
* It is not specified whether XML means RFC 2629 format XML. I'll assume
it does, but it should be specified.
* It is not specified whether all RFCs MUST be provided in all formats, or
whether they MAY be provided in any format.
If it is the former case, we have non-trivial conversion problems in
producing MS-Word documents from Ascii and XML.
If it is the latter, you're forcing people to either buy and install
specific software to be able to read the RFCs made available in MS-Word
format only, or in the worst case it may not even be possible to read
the format on all platforms.
* You don't specify which version of the MS-Word format which is acceptable.
Any? This means that people are forced into an upgrade carousel, as a
result of MS' tendency to make new format versions incompatible (not
readable) by older programs. Only old ones? Several of those have
documented security problems.
If necessary, other formats can be considered. The IETF tools team
will be tasked with producing any format conversion tools needed.
No. The tools team is a team of volunteers, and the charter specifies
why it exists and how it operates: http://tools.ietf.org/charter-page
Being tasked with the far from trivial work of reverse-engineering the
various MS-Word formats in order to produce format conversions is not part
of this, and doesn't feel particularly meaningful.
[snip]
Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider
declaring consensus in support of the change even if a large number
of 'nays' are posted to the IESG discussion list. In that regard,
Henrik Levkowetz posted the following comment
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg39170.html):
"Following the debate from the sideline till now, it's clear to me
that there are at least a few people who are adamantly against
change. I'm not at all convinced that a large majority feels this
way. A poll might reveal more than the relative proportions of
highly engaged people voicing their views here."
Judging consensus through a poll is sometimes difficult. There is a
vast "silent majority" that would support the proposed additional
formats, or at least not oppose them, but will not express their
opinion on the list. It is much more likely to hear from the very
vocal people who are opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s
of participants on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed
'nays', even strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in
favor of change.
No. Either you have to judge consensus from what's experessed on the
mailing list, or you have to use some other means of soliciting *expressed*
views. You MAY NOT assume that unvoiced views are biased in any direction,
and then declare consensus based on such an assumption.
My point was that I wasn't so sure that the views voiced on the list were
representative of the majority of IETFers - *not* that I assumed that the
majority had a particular viewpoint.
[snip]
d) 'universal' editing format on the Internet:
Even though proprietary, Word is probably the most universally used
of all document editors. In all likelihood it is the most 'standard'
document exchange language on the Internet, and that is probably why
most other SDOs use it as their standard format (except IETF). Also,
it is likely that the vast majority of IETFers have the ability to
read Word and other proprietary format documents, since it is vital
that they be able to do that to function well in today's world. In
addition, one only need look at the number of PowerPoint
presentations at IETF meetings to know that proprietary formats are
widely used by IETF participants.
In the authors' view, it is also not well justified to reject
'proprietary' formats out of hand: this is not a problem in any other
SDO.
I see a lot of guesses here which I would not personally make, and
assumptions which I don't share. I'd argue that HTML is the universal
presentation format on the internet, and something which is designed for
conversion to and from HTML - like XML - would be the closest answer to
an internet-centric editing format. But arguing further about this will,
I'm afraid, decend into the same discussion we've already had a few months
ago.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf