Melinda Shore writes: > On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 12:59 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > Er, if you're going to do that, why don't you just > > accept any source format > > It depends what problem you're trying to solve. I really dislike the > use of XML for representing protocol elements and I still use nroff and > troff for producing most of my documents (not just internet drafts), but > I can see where including XML marked-up documents in the repository > would be a win *for archival purposes*. How working groups want to > handle making document source available is a related but substantially > different matter. I haven't been paying to much attention to this thread, but my underinformed take was that there were two largish things: 1) Source availability 2) Better cross referencing For (1), just being agnostic and telling people to just deal with whatever source format the author (or wg) decided they felt most comfortable editing in gets you most of the way toward the XML goal without having to deal the religion problem. I don't think it's unreasonable to put the onus on the people who want source to deal with what the author wanted to use. The original editor's life (or lack thereof) seems more important, IMO. For (2), somebody has graciously pointed out that draft/rfc->html mungers already exist. So as a more modest proposal: On the drafts and RFC's repository have two new options: 1) Source in whatever format it came in 2) The .txt sent through the .html grinder Mike