I think this was "and html" not "or html", so I think that it is easier to have one additional format and see how it goes, rather than two (or three, or four) On of the advantages of xml is that it marks up things like references and authors with the function, rather than the appearance. You can much more easily generate html from xml than the other way around. Improved formatting is good, but improved cross references/author tracking/.... is also good. With xml, we can get both, albeit somewhat indirectly. I think that for a small, simple step, xml is a better choice. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:05 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: A modest proposal - allow the ID repository to hold xml > > > > From: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@marconi.com> > > > ... > > about. We also avoid heated discussions about what was allowable > > in the html, what version of which tools, etc. This is a > contentious > > enough issue ("rough consensus and running code" applies, right?), > > ... > > If that is a problem with HTML (I agree that it is), > why wouldn't it be a bigger problem with XML? > > Replacing "HT" with "X" doesn't magically change the politics. In > fact it makes them worse, because HTML is by now more stable and > has better consensus reality than XML. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > > _______________________________________________ > This message was passed through > ietf_censored@carmen.ipv6.cselt.it, which is a sublist of > ietf@ietf.org. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what > to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio. >
