I think this was "and html" not "or html", so I think that it is
easier to have one additional format and see how it goes, rather
than two (or three, or four)
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.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:05 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: A modest proposal - allow the ID repository to hold xml
From: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian(_dot_)Rosen(_at_)marconi(_dot_)com>
...
about. We also avoid heated discussions about what was allowable
in the html, what version of which tools, etc. This is a
contentious
enough issue ("rough consensus and running code" applies, right?),
...
If that is a problem with HTML (I agree that it is),
why wouldn't it be a bigger problem with XML?
Replacing "HT" with "X" doesn't magically change the politics. In
fact it makes them worse, because HTML is by now more stable and
has better consensus reality than XML.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
This message was passed through
ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which is a sublist
of
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed. Decisions on
what
to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.