Re: Alternative formats for IDs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 01/04/2006 17:09, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > If we use a XML format, why the very large and complexe (700 pages)
> > OpenDocument and not "our" RFC 2629?
>
> Indeed. Although, at some point of time we'll have also to realize that
> there most people when they say "RFC2629" they really mean RFC2629bis.
> So, sooner or later, we'll have to start work on a proper spec revision.
>
> Best regards, Julian

As I understand it, one of the major concerns of the people pushing for 
alternative formats is a desire to be able to include drawings and diagrams 
with something other than ASCII art.  

I don't believe that XML does much to help that.  

If one is worried about things like including pictures, diagrams, revision 
marks, etc. then I think looking into something like Open Document Format 
would make a lot more sense than considering a proprietary format like MS 
Word.

OTOH, if ASCII is good enough, then I guess there's nothing to worry about.  I 
don't have enough IETF experience to have a strong opinion either way.  I 
just think that if alternatives are going to be looked at, then ODF ought to 
be one of them.

Scott Kitterman

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]