Hi !
I think we should eventually keep the txt version of IDs and RFCs as the
reference format for `consumers` (reviewers, readers...).
The availability of sources (no matter if it is xml or nroff, etc.) has
different consequences for RFCs and I-Ds.
. For RFCs, I think sources should be available, if possible in a format
chosen by consensus; xml would be my choice here. Availability of RFCs
sources would be provided only for third parties to generate other
formats (like zvon or others). RFC repository would NOT host any of html,
ps, pdf etc formats except the ASCII .txt and the sources. IETF website
might provide such formats through cgi, servlets, etc. with an
appropriate cache if IETF decides such a functionality is relevant.
. For I-Ds, sources are important in order to relieve the editorial
process. Though I'm advocating xml, I can cope with any STANDARD format
for the representation of structured documents.
Last point is I mentioned earlier that either source or txt version
should be provided to the editor, but not both. In effect, providing two
versions of what should be `semantically` the same content may lead to
incoherences within the two versions. My trust goes more to the I-D
editor than to the actual authors here (sorry :).
The last pb is: what source formats are acceptable in the repository ?
Certainly we cannot have a huge choice here.
--
Jean-Jacques Puig
[homepage] http://www-lor.int-evry.fr/~puig/