Re: An I-D experiment (Re: HTML better for small PDAs)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



At 07:49 AM 3/12/2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
the ietf
is one of the least xml-friendly communities out there. i think that colors
your thinking.

well, it is true that there are some IETF people showing an extraordinarily retrograde tenacity to outdated formats like RFC822 headers, but I had not noticed real unfriendliness.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.


> 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?

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

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.