I would very much like to see support for XML+ASCII in IETF.
Bora
At 2:33 PM -0800 2/26/01, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
>vern - i hope we can agree that i don't fall under the categorization of
>
>> those who have not yet found an opportunity to Contribute To The Standards
>> Process
>
>if we disagree on this, then discard this message.
>
>i will tell you why i think it is a good idea that the I-D repository accept
>XML versions of drafts, whilst retaining the .txt versions as the "official"
>ones (assuming that the term "official internet-draft" isn't oxymoronic).
>
>the text format we use for I-Ds and RFCs is final form. it works great for
>printing. it works pretty well for viewing on a nice screen. it doesn't work
>well on a small screen.
>
>the advantage of using something like XML is that it is an intermediate
>form. this means that i can write programs that convert it to different
>final forms, e.g., something that looks nice on a pda. today i flew from
>sacramento to boston, rather than carrying around 500 pages of recent I-Ds,
>i loaded them onto my ipaq. although i avoided a trip to the chiropractor
>for my back, i now have to see him for the rsi i got from having to scroll
>left-right in addition to up-down.
>
>i don't know if html is better for small PDAs, and frankly, i don't care.
>what i do care about is the fact that ASCII memos can't be reformatted. that
>is just plain silly.
>
>so, i suggest a simple experiment: let the I-D repository store alternative
>versions of drafts in addition to the .txt versions. try this out for 9
>months and see if people find it useful or not. is this really asking so
>much?
>
>/mtr
