[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII

2010-03-18 11:23:23
On Thu Mar 18 03:27:30 2010, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
That would meet most of my issues, provided of course that the XML2RFC
format was published.

There's a rfc2629bis at/as

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 amount
of 'easy conversion'.


On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
> +1
> 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 the >> text version without hand editing or postprocessing, that would be a
>> 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 full adoption.

Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net - 
 - acap://
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Ietf mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>