Re: Last Call: 'Proposed Experiment: Normative Formatin AdditiontoASCII

Carl Malamud wrote:
> > It's worth distinguishing the search for alternate normative output
> > formats from the search for a standard input format.
> >
> > Or are you proposing 2629bis as a standard intermediate format, which
> > makes both camps (input and output) unhappy?
> I think we should pick one somewhat complete solution set and
> ride on top of that.  For example, the w3c approach is one wagon
> to hitch up to.  After we hitch up to a wagon, we should commission 
> a working group to work out any additional details and the rest of 
> us agree to live with it if they do a decent job.  
Anything that results in an editor that supports what modern word
processors support (collapsible outline views, in particular) is fine
with me; right now, that means Word.

> This is not a job for a committee-of-the-whole ... I'd be
> perfectly happy to let the IAB or IESG pick a religion and let
> a working group define the rules of procedure.  And, again,
> piggybacking on the w3c religion seems like a really easy
> way out of this never-ending debate.  
I'd prefer if they pick an output format that is supported by a number
of editors, rather than forcing an editing system designed, implemented,
and supported by amateurs on me.

Joe

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf