Are you suggesting that the IETF adopt the xml2rfc source as the
normative version of a specification, rather than the .txt (or .pdf)
version?
yes.
as I understand your current operation, the *real* normative version is in
nroff.
i believe that an incremental process of switching to xml2rfc -- with easy
access to that source version for follow-on editing -- would be a considerable
improvement over the status quo.
> Who is volunteering to maintain xml2rfc and guarantee backwards
> compatibility for the next 20 years? (And why should
> we believe them?)
Maintaining xml2rfc is going to far less fragile than maintaining nroff. Nroff
has no current industry penetration. XML has quite a lot.
(Both are textual encodings, so that the fall-back position of reverting to pure
text is probably equally painful.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf