"Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com>
writes:
>> From: Michael Richardson <mcr(_at_)research(_dot_)solidum(_dot_)com>
>> I would like to see the IETF continue to consider the ASCII text to be
>> the master.
>>
>> I would additionally like to see the secretariat accept drafts in some
>> TBD XML markup as well as a corresponding ASCII. The provided ASCII
>> should match that which the secretariat produces, likely by providing
>> the XML->ASCII formatter on a web site, and basing it open some open
>> source implementation.
>>
>> Authors should provide the ASCII because they should have proofread
>> that version as well.
Vernon> The dual Postscript and ASCII RFC's show that such a plan is
Vernon> likely to cause more harm than good. That dual track compromise
I agree with your analysis. That is because postscript can do anything
ASCII can do. {Microsoft Word, latex, HTML and DocBook can do anything ASCII
can do}
I'm not certain that this would be the case for a sufficiently constrained
DTD. Something at the level of complexity of the MAN nroff macros in
formatting ability.
Vernon> Absolutely all of us have ideas for improving of the form of
Vernon> RFC's, but it's a lot harder to say something useful about RFC
Vernon> contents. Thus, those who have not yet found an opportunity to
Vernon> Contribute To The Standards Process see opportunities in
Vernon> "implementing modern text preparation in the IETF" (with
Vernon> "implement" as in "implement TCP/IP in a corporate network"). It
Vernon> seems clear that some of those who are adamant about replacing
Vernon> boring old ASCII are more readers than authors or editors.
Vernon> Worse, I suspect a few have not spent much time reading the ASCII
Vernon> stuff and would read little in any format, not matter how modern.
I tend to agree with your comments.
Vernon> I've noticed the resounding silence of some who have made
Vernon> substantive contributions that might facilitate a transition to
Vernon> using XML for ID's. Why do is that? Could it be that they
Vernon> distinguish tools for writing (e.g. XML authoring tools) from the
Vernon> form and utility of an RFC?
I've done all my drafts in DocBook with an "sgml2rfc" translator that
was cooked up. I know others that have done the same. More recently, I've
been using an "rfc.el", but I may go back to sgml2rfc. Given that I already
have something in SGML, the info is already there.
:!mcr!: | Solidum Systems Corporation, http://www.solidum.com
Michael Richardson |For a better connected world,where data flows faster<tm>
Personal: http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html
mailto:mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ottawa(_dot_)on(_dot_)ca
mailto:mcr(_at_)solidum(_dot_)com