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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf