W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 12:17:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwha34pYs4DeC+73e+WmtOZUj9mt3XvutFt58v74j83qow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
We can certainly do everything with tex that we can do with HTML and
everything we want with HTML.

Problem with TeX is that it is a Turing complete language which means
that it provides way more flexibility than we would want. I would
expect that we ended up using LaTeX which is not quite the same thing.

For my thesis I had examples in TeX that compiled and executed during
the document production process. That is baaaaad precedent.

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/9/12 9:40 AM, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Note: a third non responsive response.
>>
>> Are you actually going to answer the question?
>>
>> What are the other formats that you think should be considered and why?
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/83/materials.html#wg-rfcform
>
> - Just add UTF-8
> - Just add URLs
> - TeX input
> - PDF/A
>
> Note: Personally, I think all of these but the TeX input do not meet the
> requirements for which we're starting to see a little bit of emerging
> consensus.  I'm only interested in the HTML output of the TeX input, to
> ensure that it meets the requirements.  As such, TeX could be just one more
> precursor toolchain for those that like it.
>
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 16:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 16:17:43 GMT