Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
As I've said before, I think XML makes sense. However, I do not think the extra delay required to change the specification would be worthwhile, and consequently would only go along with such a change if there were strong support from the implementation community.
XML does make sense, if you're designing a format from scratch. As it turned out, we agreed on the record-jar-like format during the RFC 4646 process, sometime in 2004, for reasons that would not be appropriate to exhume and second-guess 5 years later.
Since there are people already using the existing format, this change would result not only in extra delay in the specification process but also a breaking change for implementers. As Randy, said, the WG discussed this extensively; there were at least two and possibly three separate waves of discussion. There has to be a point where we accept the WG's decision and move on.
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.