Presumably the RFC editor would publish the XML document as the authoritative version, and would also generate and publish (from the XML) alternative copies in the ASCII text, PDF, and HTML formats.
Ok. This would be fine. My point was that I as a user (and particularly the large groups of other users out there) are unwilling to do anything extra to read their RFCs. But if the secretariat already publishes the important formats, its fine!
And all of these submission formats should be allowed if and only there's a text version to go with it.
Let me go out on a limb and say "No they shouldn't; only XML submissions should be allowed."
Well, this would be quite good too. In fact, it would help the RFC editor automatization process as well -- and they could concentrate more on the real issues, such as talking to IANA or figure out cross references.
Thinking some more... I'd *love* to have this. Anyone who opposes?
[*] The critical aspect is that the DTD *must* be kept simple. If the DTD evolves into a Turing machine with Perl-like syntax we can just acknowledge that it's time to shut down the IETF and go home. I cling to the forlorn hope that people still know - and more importantly, understand - what the 'E' in IETF stands for.
Extension?
--Jari