It's worth distinguishing the search for alternate normative output formats from the search for a standard input format. Or are you proposing 2629bis as a standard intermediate format, which makes both camps (input and output) unhappy? Joe Carl Malamud wrote: > Hi - > > There's been an awful lot of traffic on this subject, both this time > around and in the perpetual past. My $0.02 is that we're a standards > body and we shouldn't invent a new document profile/standard. That's > not our business, so we should steal code. > > We have a home-grown effort done by a few people since 1998, which > has been doing fairly well. That's a self-contained body of work, > which could easily be supplemented by a working group effort to > evolve the specs. If we're going to be NIH, that seems like the > logical option to consider. > > If we don't do that, we should adopt what seems to work well for others. > W3C standards look great, they've thought hard about the document format, > and that's the business they're in. > > If we're going to last call something, I think it should be a choice > from a list of existing bodies of work: w3c, xml2rfc, or any of the > other document-production systems (OASIS, Docbook, ITU, OSI, or > whatever you want). > > I'm very partial to xml2rfc, but I also see a lot of power in a > joint w3c/ietf spec. That will get you tools pretty quick. If the > IESG or the IAB recommended one path to take, a working group could > pretty quickly do any necessary tweaks (e.g., mapping to 2629 or > 2629bis). > > Carl > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf