Carl Malamud wrote:
It's worth distinguishing the search for alternate normative output
formats from the search for a standard input format.
Or are you proposing 2629bis as a standard intermediate format, which
makes both camps (input and output) unhappy?
I think we should pick one somewhat complete solution set and
ride on top of that. For example, the w3c approach is one wagon
to hitch up to. After we hitch up to a wagon, we should commission
a working group to work out any additional details and the rest of
us agree to live with it if they do a decent job.
Anything that results in an editor that supports what modern word
processors support (collapsible outline views, in particular) is fine
with me; right now, that means Word.
This is not a job for a committee-of-the-whole ... I'd be
perfectly happy to let the IAB or IESG pick a religion and let
a working group define the rules of procedure. And, again,
piggybacking on the w3c religion seems like a really easy
way out of this never-ending debate.
I'd prefer if they pick an output format that is supported by a number
of editors, rather than forcing an editing system designed, implemented,
and supported by amateurs on me.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ietf mailing list