At 18:30 26/02/2001 -0800, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
> There is a use for XML or nroff versions of I-D's (but not RFC's) that
> has not been mentioned much (maybe first in your mention of "ASCII memos
> can't be reformatted"). It saves lots of work to exchange editorial
changes
> as deltas to a mark up language version.
i agree. this certainly is of value to the folks who author I-Ds.
> Perhaps in other words, allow XML in ftp.isi.edu:internet-drafts but
> not in ftp.isi.edu:in-notes
i agree. i'm not asking that we publish RFCs in any new formats. i'm
suggesting that we experiment for 9 months in the I-D area.
A slight modification (I changed the subject line to concentrate on the
constructive thread out of this):
Let's say that we accept I-Ds in ASCII format.
Let's also say that for each I-D, the secretariat will accept up to 1 file
containing "source", where "source" can be NROFF macros, XML (Marshall's
DTD) text or Word documents.
To be stored in the "internet-drafts/source" subdirectory.
(for completeness, there should also be a note saying how to produce the
ASCII from the source; my Word stuff differs from the official Word stuff -
but this makes the use/submission more complex)
After 9 months, we can ask people to evaluate:
- Whether they used "source" at all
- What formats they found that were useful
- What formats they found that caused trouble
This thread should go somewhere else....
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald(_at_)Alvestrand(_dot_)no