Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
To: martin.rex at sap.com
Cc: ned+ietf at mauve.mrochek.com, iljitsch at muada.com, csp at csperkins.org, ietf at ietf.org
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:54:25 +0200
In-reply-to: <200907062040.n66KeImA001905 at fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
References: <200907062040.n66KeImA001905 at fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>

Martin Rex wrote:

...
Personally I don't like XML at all, and the IETF should NEVER standardize
on a particular tool, if any, but only on a very restricted subset of
XML tags, if any.  (So that tools more mainstream languages can be
produced and used).
...


Could you please elaborate what you mean by "restricted subset of XML tags"?

BR, Julian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF
  - From: Martin Rex

References:
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF
  - From: Martin Rex

Prev by Date: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
Next by Date: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF
Previous by thread: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF
Next by thread: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

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.