On Thu Mar 18 03:27:30 2010, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
That would meet most of my issues, provided of course that the
There's a rfc2629bis at/as
format was published.
Is there anything you feel that's not covering? (I agree much of
is now in such common usage a formal I-D submission would be useful).
Zero time spent going to an editable format is better than any
of 'easy conversion'.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
> On 3/17/2010 12:18 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> If we could agree that the final XML was authoritative, and if
>> necessary let them hire someone to fix xmlrfc so it can produce
>> text version without hand editing or postprocessing, that would
>> big step forward.
I'm in agreement 99%.
I just think we've accumulated a lot of working experience with XML
editing forms both in the IETF and elsewhere, and it'd be useful to
attempt to consolidate that at this point in time before moving to
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net -
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Ietf mailing list