Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Jan 5, 2006, at 11:31 AM, John Levine wrote:

Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm "none."

One is that ASCII doesn't permit adequately beautiful pictures. If that's the problem to be solved, it seems to me that a straightforward solution would be to allow authors to submit image files along with the ASCII text. I'd suggest requiring that the image format be GIF, since it's simple, stable, well documented, widely supported in both freeware and commercial software, and the patents have expired. (Or maybe PNG, any stable public format will do.)

A minor problem with independent graphic files is they are difficult to manage. A graphic image has also become a vehicle for Trojans, as file extensions often do not take precedence within rendering engines. This would impose a new risk for the editor. An interim solution could be a drawing application (or a regular editor) that uses Unicode "Box Drawing" characters rather than ACSII hyphens, under-score, plus symbols, greater-than, less-than, and vertical bars. For these to provide a clean output, the line spacing would need to be controlled for a clean look. This can be done using HTML and PDF outputs.


The other is that the editorial process is more tedious than it needs to be, because RFCs have a mandatory structure that plain ASCII doesn't express. RFC 2629 or 2629bis captures the structure while being well supported in free and commercial software and, in a pinch, legible without tools since it's ASCII underneath.

These tools can already utilize the "Box Drawing" characters, so a utillity to assist with the creation of the box drawings would make this less painful. The utility could also add the needed XML wrapper to make this an easy cut and paste. If desired, these characters could be translated back into the ASCII equivalent for the ASCII version. It would also seem that bibliography and author names could also include a Unicode element used by the HTML and PDF outputs, but then not the ASCII versions. The alternative elements for titles and authors would be assuming a desire to retain the ASCII only version. If the ASCII version is not retained, then the effort would be even more straight forward.

-Doug


_______________________________________________

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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]