Subject: Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:19:18 -0800 (PST)

It is easy to give glib answers to the following questions, ignoring
many detailed issues.  Easy, but suspect.

Bob Braden

>
>The issues under discussion should be: (1) whether the RFC Editor
>should publish RFCs in some XML-based structural document descriptor
>language, (2) whether this should be in particular the DTD defined in
>RFC 2629, (3) whether an XML version should be co-authoritative with an
>ASCII version or should be primary or secondary to the ASCII version,
>(4) if an XML version is to be published as authoritative, how to
>ensure that it is correct and consistent with the ASCII version, if
>any.
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:58:33 -0800

> many detailed issues.  Easy, but suspect.

Bob, it is also easy to ask a set questions and then dismiss answers to 
them.  Easy but suspect.

First of all, if you did not feel that your questions were sufficient, it 
would have been nice for you to have said so.  Evidently you were looking 
for something other than responses, but there is no way to tell what.

Second of all, if you feel that simple answers to your directed questions is 
not sufficient, perhaps you will respond in a manner that encourages 
exploration, rather than attack.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>