Furthermore, editors should motivate their document to easy readings to
understanding.
You should take your own advice. Your emails are difficult to read, and
difficult to understand. The above sentence is not even grammatical English.
And you're seeking to give authors advice? REALLY?
Also, you are discriminating against cultures that consider funny RFCs to be
funny, and humour to be a useful educational tool in gaining understanding.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
[abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 05 March 2014 02:45
To: SM
Cc: iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org; ietf
Subject: Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"
Hi SM
The draft should consider reader styles then present author styles and then RFC
best practice style. I don't think the funny RFC is a best practice style.
One of the important issue of document styles, is the each style purpose or
benefit to all readers. Documents are for readers and mostly new readers. RFCs
should consider new readers, especially the funny RFCs (in some cultures they
may not think that style is funny).
IMHO , The RFC editor output general style should change to welcome/match more
reader styles. Authors should not do documents without clarifying purpose of
their writing style. Furthermore, editors should motivate their document to
easy readings to understanding. Comment below,
Thanks,
AB
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014, SM wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
At 09:16 04-03-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
The most important comment for me as start message is that the 1st April RFC
should be categorised different than IETF standards. IMHO, The past RFC style
is not a reasonable style of the world or the future best practices. In
considering our standards business and our documents reputation, we should not
make jokes with our followers only if we are sure all like such jokes.
I don't want to stop that Style type, but it should be easily discriminated by
readers/users from other real work/business.
The special RFCs are not part of the IETF Stream and they are not an IETF
standard in any way.
You need to tell all possible readers that, or IETF should work hard to make
media know about its special RFC.
I agree that some of these RFCs might be difficult for some readers to
understand.
That is good, so those docs are not making things easy to readers but making it
easy to others to joke or make fun or waste time. Some Readers may not have
time for jokes like the author or editor have. The doc style affect the time
and benefit of reader/writer.
I don't think that a decision about categorizing RFCs should be part of the
discussion about RFC Style.
Why not? If the RFC are not for users to benefit and easy understand then why
not categorising?