At 07:49 AM 3/12/2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
>the ietf
>is one of the least xml-friendly communities out there. i think that colors
>your thinking.
well, it is true that there are some IETF people showing an extraordinarily
retrograde tenacity to outdated formats like RFC822 headers, but I had not
noticed real unfriendliness. On the other hand, that tenacity might be a
reflection of the NEED for making such changes slowly.
In any event, the IETF experience is not what I base my opinion on, but
rather the process of looking for editors, doing the editing, and in trying
to view xml. Internet Explorer, for example, does a rationale, job
displaying XML, but it is strictly for geeks. (One might say that that is
the intended audience but IETF documents are read more widely than
that.) The editors are generally either complicated to use or not very
powerful.
> > 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?
Sorry. Meant I-D, which IS what is being proposed.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464
