At 10:01 PM 2/12/01 -0800, WJCarpenter wrote:
>paul> I do happen to believe that folks in IETF circles would love to
>paul> have an RFC for a clean, simple, network-friendly, text-based
>paul> file format for the kinds of content we can author.
>
>What kinds of content are those? Is there something unique about the
>Abiword format that makes it other than an XML-based WP format? The
>IETF is pretty much concerned with on-the-wire protocols and, to a
>very limited extent, other sorts of interoperability. Application
>file formats are of little standardization interest to the IETF as a
>body.
Bill,
I think I'm getting whiplash, which suggests that this conversation has just
about hit bottom.
On the one hand, I'm getting the message that the non-vnd namespace is so
important that thou shalt not mess with it. Sam just about had a coronary
at my suggestion that we go about using application/abiword without
registering it immediately.
On the other hand, I now have the sense that the IETF couldn't care less
about what we're doing, no matter how cool and minimalist our markup is.
(Not to provoke yet another flamewar, but most XML formats are verbose
and/or convoluted to the point of insanity. In particular, the other XML
formats for WP content that I've seen are atrocious.)
If both of these are true in a non-contradictory way, then I'm not thrilled
about the implications. If registering requires an RFC that IETF wouldn't
want to supervise, then what's the point of registering?
my bottom line
--------------
RFCs are good things, and IETF does good work. If we fit there, I'd be
happy. If we don't, I'd also be happy. I just want to start using
application/abiword (or whatever) consistently on our various OSes.
Anything else before we move on?
Paul,
grumpy guy talking out of his hat
PS: Are you suggesting that IETF folks, as a group, don't use word
processors and never receive Word documents as attachments?
