Subject: Re: Why XML is perferable

From: [email-masked] (Jun'an Gao)
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:51:56 +0800 (CST)

>  *> well-known, but some RFCs such as those on OSPF may be much
>  *> more vivid if written in XML. There have been quite a few

> Vivid?  We are talking about deeply complex technical documents
> here, not MTV.  What do you mean, "vivid"?

Maybe, we can display, say, an example of routing information flow,
vividly. Putting a hyperlink to a GIF animation in the XML document
would works. No MTV required. And I believe it will help the
programmers/protocol implementors.

Sincerely,
Jun-an Gao.

---

From: Sean Finn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:16:52 -0800

Jun'an Gao wrote:
> would works. 

Pointing to where?

Should active Internet connectivity be necessary to read an RFC?

Even if a "local"/file URL is specified, how can this compound
document get distributed via Email ... mailers vary greatly in
how they deal with attachments. 

I definitely see the potential value in HTML/XML *annotated*
RFCs. But they should be an additional expression of what 
is in the ASCII. 

cheers -- Sean

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:13:12 +0100

>how they deal with attachments.

MHTML specification, RFC 2557.
The only (AFAIK) compound document format within our repertoire.
If we accept HTML or any other format with natural embedded references (and 
don't outlaw their use), RFC 2557 is the least bad alternative I know.

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]