Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:24:07 -0400

>  Date: 2005-04-06 12:45
>  From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
 
> As others have pointed out, nroff (or MS Word, etc.) fans can still submit
> their drafts using the Toolset (as currently defined); they just will not
> submit their sources.

Which implies, for the case of documents where figures (etc.) differ
in PostScript/PDF and plain text versions, that there will still be a
substantial amount of manual effort required. See draft sections 1 & 8.
Generation of text, PostScript, and PDF from single troff source is not
only feasible, it is de rigeur.  It seems silly to specify a toolset
purportedly to provide benefits of automation, but not to specify
automated processing of a widely-used source format which is quite
amenable to automated processing.

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:21:00 -0600

On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> As others have pointed out, nroff (or MS Word, etc.) fans can still  
>> submit their drafts using the Toolset (as currently defined); they just  
>> will not submit their sources.
>

Can you clarify what requires what effort? I have a feeling you are not  
talking about the Toolset here (as it does not require extra effort) but  
IETF requirements to supply plain text format if there is a PDF/PS format.  
I do not see where nroff comes in here.

> only feasible, it is de rigeur.

Great (and I think the same can be said about XML sources).

> It seems silly to specify a toolset

 From [my interpretation of] the Tools team point of view, the nroff source  
format is not or will not be used widely enough to include it in the  
initial Toolset specs, especially since nroff-using authors can still use  
the Toolset as specified and benefit from automation the Toolset provides.  
If you disagree, you have at least three options:

	(a) Raise the issue with IESG. Demand that the Submission draft is not  
published until nroff support is explicitly included by the Tools team.

	(b) Raise the issue with IESG. Send specific Submission draft changes to  
support nroff. Demand their inclusion.

	(c) Publish "Requirements for nroff support in the Draft Submission  
Toolset" RFC.

My biased recommendation is to use a non-confrontational option (c).

Alex.

---

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:44:08 -0400

> Can you clarify what requires what effort?

Draft section 8 states:

   Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format
   must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their
   content matches plain text format (R143/a).

That would seem to be unnecessary if PostScript/PDF are generated
automatically (by the Toolset) from the same source used to generate
text.

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:01:01 -0600

> automatically (by the Toolset) from the same source used to generate

The requirement is, of course, necessary (it does not depend on what the  
Toolset does or does not; it is driven by IETF needs).

If text and PDF/PS formats are generated automatically (and correctly) by  
the Toolset from the same source, then the Toolset effectively validates  
that PDF/PS content matches plain text format.

In theory, there are probably other ways to validate, such as converting  
submitted PDF/PS to plain text. Please note that I am not saying that  
those theoretical ways are practical! It is quite possible that submitted  
PS/PDF drafts will never be auto-validated and, hence, will never be  
auto-posted. Is that a problem? I doubt (given the low number of PS/PDF  
drafts). I do not want to optimize for a few corner cases. However, if  
folks disagree, they can add more requirements to the Nth version of the  
Toolset...

Please note that currently PS/PDF draft formats are not compared to plain  
text format when posted by the Secretariat, and there is no requirement in  
the Submission Toolset draft that the Secretariat must compare in the  
future. This may change once folks start posting porn in PS/PDF format.

Alex.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:14:53 -0400

> that PDF/PS content matches plain text format.

not necessarily - for instance if the source can conditionally generate
content depending on the output format.  which, if you think about it,
is about the only reason we should bother trying to generate multiple
formats from a common source.

Keith

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:33:30 -0600

On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[email-masked]> wrote:

> content depending on the output format.

Good and important point indeed! I will try to include a corresponding  
informal "hint" into the draft.

> which, if you think about it,

Here I disagree because presentation quality matters to humans who read  
our drafts, but I do not think we should argue about this. It will  
probably boil down to the definition of "content". Not important...

Thank you,

Alex.