> Taking the sort of paranoid approach that befits assurances of stability, > needed for people doing critical operations, I look for a well-established > range of products and for wide-spread use. Because IETF documents are used > far beyond the confines of the IETF, the term "wide-spread" needs to work > with Internet scaling, not just IETF scaling. dave - i don't know how to say this politely, so i'll just say it: the ietf is one of the least xml-friendly communities out there. i think that colors your thinking. > Until then, it is not appropriate to change the massively-stable base that > forms the encoding rules for RFCs. XML as an adjunct is fine. As a > primary form for RFCs? Not yet. err, i don't recall anyone proposing this. if you're going to argue against something, first make sure that someone proposed it, ok? /mtr
- An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small PDAs) Harald Alvestrand
- Re: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small P... Michael Richardson
- Re: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small P... Vernon Schryver
- RE: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small P... graham . travers
- Re: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small P... Michael Richardson
- RE: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small P... Rosen, Brian
- RE: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small P... Dave Crocker
- Re: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small P... Marshall T. Rose
- Re: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small P... Marshall T. Rose
- Re: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small P... Vernon Schryver
- Re: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small P... Marshall T. Rose
- Re: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small P... Dave Crocker
