From: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
...
(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. ...
(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.
That sounds fine or at least tolerable.
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.
yes.
Did I misunderstand him? Do we disagree about part of the above
and, if so, which part?
My possibly mistaken impression of Brian's most recent position is
that he would support XML for the official documents. Regardless of
his position, other people have clearly come out in favor XML for the
official format. The frequently mentioned hyperlinks among documents
such as for authors would be rather boring if the links are only among
documents that expire after 6 months. More powerful searching among
I-Ds would be useful, but the real power would be searching among
RFCs. Several people have written about converting old RFCs to XML.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com