Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials

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

 



nroff still works fine for me. It's already there in Mac OS X.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx


On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
>> > I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
>> > provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
>> > This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may
>> > include implementers.  Can that be accommodated, maybe at a future
>> > meeting?  I am happy to help if I can.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but no, I am not comfortable with this.  If someone
>> wants to go off on their own and do something along these lines,
>> more power to them, but we have working group charters, we've
>> got framework documents, and presumably people can read.
>>
>> I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
>> something closer to conferences, or to dumbing things down to
>> accommodate newcomers who I gather from discussion so far don't have
>> anything particular in mind.
>
>
> IETF meetings are trying to do two different things
>
> 1) Do work on working group documents and specifications
>
> 2) Foster understanding of work in other parts of the IETF and encourage
> cross-working group interactions.
>
>
> These are different objectives that require totally different approaches.
> The first is best met by small one or two day meetings of people who are
> concentrating on just that one spec. The second is best met by plenaries and
> session talks designed to explain work to people outside the group.
>
>
>
> As for tutorial sessions on tools for writing IDs... Isn't the need for such
> a session proof that the tools and/or the formats are broken?
>
> I got fed up with the hosted version of XML2RFC and found it impossible to
> get the code running on my machine (it requires very specific python package
> versions that would require me to down-version). Plus I find the XML2RFC
> format obnoxious. The original expectation in 1999 was that XML editors
> would soon be ubiquitous and good. Instead there are rather and they all
> suck.
>
> So I wrote my own. You can now write your RFC in HTML and the tool will
> convert it into IETF caveman format, formatted HTML and/or XML2RFC. I will
> be adding XML2RFC format sometime next week.
>
> The code has only been tested on Windows so far but it is in CLI and so the
> executable can run on any platform with a runtime (all of them). I want to
> test on other platforms and test submitting drafts before making a release.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/html2rfc/?source=directory
>
>
> The reason for adding xml2rfc format is that some folk may want to use it
> just for the ability to manage references. Instead of having to mess about
> with sticking entities in the front and citations in the middle and
> references in the running text, just add a reference in the text, [~RFC822]
> for informative, [!RFC822] for normative and the tool will work it all out.
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/




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