Spencer Dawkins wrote: >>> The key question is whether there exists a format which is likely to be >>> sufficiently stable that we won't have to revisit this decision in >>> another 35 years. All the proposed formats - including PDF, XML, etc. - >>> are moving targets at this time. >> >> That's why I suggested GIF. Like ASCII, GIF has its shortcomings, but >> its definition hasn't changed in 16 years and I've never seen GIF >> software that doesn't interoperate. > > I did want to distinguish between targets that someone else moves and > targets we move. If we care, we can make sure that some variant of > XML2RFC continues to work even if "XML is a moving target", so relying > on our ability to process XML and produce RFCs in 35 years is probably > pretty darned safe.
And forces us to use a single version of a tool in which to write I-Ds. By that argument, any format we define is a static target, but equally useless in a fairly short time. It'd also be nice for us to be able to use modern editing tools, rather than chiseling out drafts in source code like we did in the 1970s. Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
