On 18.03.2010 20:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 mrt 2010, at 2:43, Richard Barnes wrote:
+1
Making the XML normative would be an abomination.
The XML in itself can't be interpreted by a human to the level needed to create
a compliant implementation, although it deceptively looks like maybe it could.
Of course human readability also doesn't exist for pretty much anything other
than text or the simplest of HTML, in itself this isn't a show stopper.
That is simply incorrect, which can easily be checked by looking at the
XML source of a spec.
But there is no standard way of converting xml2rfc into something that humans
can interpret unambigously. Practically, the only way to do this is with the
xml2rfc tool, which is non-standard, only partially documented and very hard to
run for most people. There have also been times during which the released
version was unable to convert the XML files that were actually being used
inside the IETF.
Again incorrect. There is at least one other implementation that can be
used by everybody who's got a current browser (which means, everybody),
assuming that the source file actually is valid, and doesn't use
non-standard extensions (as opposed to what RFC 2629 defines).
And of course there are no existing RFC for which there is an xml2rfc XML file
that you can run through xml2rfc and obtain the exact ASCII version of that
RFC. Older RFCs are formatted in ways which are completely incompatible with
xml2rfc, so it would be impossible to have all RFCs be available in one format
if XML is adopted for future RFCs.
Yes. How is that a problem, exactly? Just don't try to change the past.
If we really want to do something in this space first of all we need to agree
on the problem, then on the requirements and THEN we can have a useful
discussion. So far the only thing I hear is assertions offered without any
foundation that the current format is problematic, while every personal
computer operating system sold (or given away for free) the past decade can
display it without the need to install additional software. That's a pretty
good result for files which date back as long as 40 years. Good luck finding
any other document format of the same age with that property.
That may be true, but that features comes with drawbacks.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf