> From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> > ... > (1) As an/the authoritative format, plain ASCII text, plus > whatever additional format(s) the RFC Editor decides to permit > to support drawings, etc., should almost certainly remain the > target for the reasons you identify. ... > (2) If a group of people, such as a WG, are collaborating on the > development of a document, having the working format (whatever > it is) readily available would seem to be an advantage. This > should not make that format authoritative, or attach any special > importance or validation to it relative to other formats. That sounds fine or at least tolerable. > Now I think that all that Brian proposed originally was that the > XML format of Internet Drafts be made available when it happened > to exist. Even though that might be letting the proverbial > camel's nose into the tent, it strikes me as basically harmless > and probably useful. yes. > Did I misunderstand him? Do we disagree about part of the above > and, if so, which part? My possibly mistaken impression of Brian's most recent position is that he would support XML for the official documents. Regardless of his position, other people have clearly come out in favor XML for the official format. The frequently mentioned hyperlinks among documents such as for authors would be rather boring if the links are only among documents that expire after 6 months. More powerful searching among I-Ds would be useful, but the real power would be searching among RFCs. Several people have written about converting old RFCs to XML. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com