Subject: Re: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small PDAs)

From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:26:45 -0800

> A premise behind the formatting rules for IETF documents is that they are
> easy to create and easy to read.  As popular as XML is in the minds of the
> technical community, there are few tools for creating it and little
> widespread use of it.
>
> So far.

dave - i think this is one of those ymmv things. i know a lot of people who
do a lot of xml input using wysiwyg editors. rfc 2629 listed a couple of
tools from a couple of years ago, there are a lot more out there now. in
other words, i politely question the basis for your assertion above.

for myself, i use emacs simply because i can use it to edit all kinds of
files on all kinds of systems. this is a trade-off from having xml-specific
support, but that's okay.

finally, for those folks who are using the rfc2629-based tool called
xml2rfc: there is a new release available that generates nroff, in addition
to txt (rfc 2223) and html. the reason why it generates nroff is that you
can give that to the rfc-editor along with your txt file and it gives them a
leg up on their editing process - http://xml.resource.org/

/mtr

---

From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:49:36 -0800

> Taking the sort of paranoid approach that befits assurances of stability,
> needed for people doing critical operations, I look for a well-established
> range of products and for wide-spread use.  Because IETF documents are
used
> far beyond the confines of the IETF, the term "wide-spread" needs to work
> with Internet scaling, not just IETF scaling.

dave - i don't know how to say this politely, so i'll just say it: the ietf
is one of the least xml-friendly communities out there. i think that colors
your thinking.

> 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?

/mtr

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:32:54 +1100

At 07:49 AM 3/12/2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
>the ietf

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retrograde tenacity to outdated formats like RFC822 headers, but I had not 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.

>something, first make sure that someone proposed it, ok?

Sorry.  Meant I-D, which IS what is being proposed.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:09:49 +0000 (GMT)

> >is one of the least xml-friendly communities out there. i think that colors

that is not a criticism of the ietf, but of xml.

L.

fashionable _and_ broken.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>