Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Presumably the RFC editor would publish the XML document as the
authoritative version, and would also generate and publish (from the XML)
alternative copies in the ASCII text, PDF, and HTML formats.
Ok. This would be fine. My point was that I as a user (and
particularly the large groups of other users out there) are
unwilling to do anything extra to read their RFCs. But if
the secretariat already publishes the important formats, its
fine!
And all of these submission formats should be allowed if
and only there's a text version to go with it.
Let me go out on a limb and say "No they shouldn't; only XML submissions
should be allowed."
Well, this would be quite good too. In fact, it would help the
RFC editor automatization process as well -- and they could
concentrate more on the real issues, such as talking to IANA
or figure out cross references.
Thinking some more... I'd *love* to have this. Anyone who
opposes?
[*] The critical aspect is that the DTD *must* be kept simple. If the DTD
evolves into a Turing machine with Perl-like syntax we can just
acknowledge that it's time to shut down the IETF and go home. I cling to
the forlorn hope that people still know - and more importantly,
understand - what the 'E' in IETF stands for.
Extension?
--Jari