RE: A modest proposal - allow the ID repository to hold xml

--On Wednesday, 03 September, 2003 15:34 -0600 Vernon Schryver 
<vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > From: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian(_dot_)Rosen(_at_)marconi(_dot_)com>
> ...
> > On of the advantages of xml is that it marks up things like
> > references and authors with the function, rather than the
> > appearance.  You can much more easily generate html from xml
> > than the other way around. Improved formatting is good, but
> > improved cross references/author tracking/.... is also good.
> > With xml, we can get both, albeit somewhat indirectly.  I
> > think that for a small, simple step, xml is a better choice.
> The same things were said the last half dozen times this issue
> came up. After about the second or third round in about 1989,
> PostScript was officially sanctioned.  In some ways that went
> worse than opponents predicted, but in other ways better.  The
> positive view is that PostScript for RFCs died.  Since then
> we've had at least 2 or 3 rounds of "HTML is better" followed
> by at least two rounds not counting this one for XML.
>
> It's one thing to advocate PostScript, MS Word, XML, HTML,
> nroff, or whatever you like for the I-D submission format.
> This morning some people seemed to be saying that XML should
> only replace nroff.  I don't see the point, but then I use vi
> ...
Vernon,

The proposal seems to be evolving --or a straw man is being set 
up with which to kill it-- and I can't tell any more whether we 
agree or not.  So let me try to restate things a bit...
(1) As an/the authoritative format, plain ASCII text, plus 
whatever additional format(s) the RFC Editor decides to permit 
to support drawings, etc., should almost certainly remain the 
target for the reasons you identify.  And any of those 
"additional formats" should almost certainly be self-contained 
page description/ layout ones.  I.e., although the RFC Editor 
might impose additional criteria, Postscript qualifies and PDF 
qualifies.  No "mark up" language, be it nroff, XML, HTML, or 
others, ought to qualify because they require supplemental 
information,  embedded in processors or elsewhere, to actually 
determine what is displaced.
(2) If a group of people, such as a WG, are collaborating on the 
development of a document, having the working format (whatever 
it is) readily available would seem to be an advantage.  This 
should not make that format authoritative, or attach any special 
importance or validation to it relative to other formats.
Now I think that all that Brian proposed originally was that the 
XML format of Internet Drafts be made available when it happened 
to exist.   Even though that might be letting the proverbial 
camel's nose into the tent, it strikes me as basically harmless 
and probably useful.
Did I misunderstand him?  Do we disagree about part of the above 
and, if so, which part?
   john