What I find rather puzzling here is that most of the defenders of the
status quo are saying 'document format is really no big deal, why make
a fuss'. And the contrary argument is 'Actually, this is a very big
deal to us, we care a lot about how the documents look and the type of
tools that can be used to generate them.
If these are genuinely the positions on each side then I really can't
see what the reason for not making a change would be. The people who
care about the issue have made very clear that they are willing to
help write code etc to make a transition. We already have xml2rfc, 95%
of the tools are already in place. The only changes that need to take
place are for the IESG to declare the HTML generated by XML2RFC as
canonical and for the web site and RFC practices to reflect this
change.
Case in point here, I have the 150 pages of the DSKPP document I am
meant to be reviewing next to me, as always I forgot to set the print
margins to match the IETF criteria and so the headers wrap round
making the task of reading them a much bigger chore than it needs to
be. So instead of actually reviewing the document I am writing this
instead.
So in the hope of finding consensus here, lets see what people's
position actually is
A) The format issue does not matter
B) The format issue matters a little to me and I prefer the teleprinter format
C) The format issue matters a lot to me and it MUST be teleprinter format
D) The format issue matters a little to me and I prefer the HTML format
E) The format issue matters a lot to me and it MUST be HTML format
By matters a lot I mean a LOT, as in you avoid bringing work into IETF
process because of the document format or you are less inclined to
read IETF documents or work on them as a result of the format.
Before you answer that, here is a list of consensus requirements on
the document format:
1) Easy to generate
2) Readily supported by a wide range of authoring tools
3) Conformance can be checked using automatic tools
4) Open specification, stable, non proprietary
5) Reversible, able to recover editing format from publication format
6) Longeivity, guarantee of being able to interpret them in 1000 years
time assuming ability to read the physical format still exists
Supporters of the teleprinter format add:
7) Looks like the teleprinter format
Supporters of the HTML format add:
8) Ability to include useful diagrams and tables (ASCII art does not qualify)
9) Ability to code names properly
10) Ability to write an intelligible document on internationalization issues
Looking through the list, it is clear that HTML can meet every one of
the consensus criteria. In most cases meeting it much better than the
IETF format.
1) It is not practical to generate teleprinter format by hand using an
ASCII editor any longer since the adoption of the nits tool.
2) There is only one operating system and one typesetting tool that
makes generating the teleprinter format remotely easy.
3,4) tie
5) It is much easier to convert HTML to XML format than text
6) tie, no really, anyone who thinks we will have difficulty reading
HTML in the future needs to read the history of the Rosetta stone
7) The HTML format for RFCs is as recognizably IETF RFC style as anything else
8, 9, 10) Only supported by HTML.
I am in class E. I find being required to edit documents in
teleprinter format to be very insulting to me personally. I take a
great pride in my work and I do not like being forced to present it in
a format where the principle justification for it appears to be
'because we can force you to do it our way'.
I definitely prioritize IETF work lower than I would because the
document format basically makes me angry every time I see it. And
being told in condescending terms that I should not bother about it
only makes me angrier still.
And note that on this occasion I was not the person who even raised the issue.
Now having got that out of my system I am going to print out the DSKPP
document again and review it.
--
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf