Actually, it *is* a valid argument - consider that hieroglyphs were
unreadable until they found the Rosetta Stone. The media lasted, but the
ability to parse didn't.
If we're going to stray onto the treacherous ice of logic here,
then I feel constrained to point out that ASCII, XML, and so
on are merely ways of formatting characters, not languages
in and of themselves. The clay tablet vs paper comparison really
isn't applicable either, because the basic storage and display media
do not change in our example, regardless of which format we adopt.
A more precise analogy would be something along the lines of
'shall we use ink, paint, chisels, or chalk?' I'm afraid that even
this construct isn't particularly useful in our context.
There are times when analogies can shine a bright light on a dark
debate, but they may also be the last refuge of the obfuscator.
I say ASCII source documents are fine; if someone wants to convert their
personal copies of the docs into XML, PDF, HTML, or Morse Code, they're
perfectly welcome to do so.
Cheers,
RGF
Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP
========================================
Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
========================================