Carl Malamud wrote: >> 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? > > I think we should pick one somewhat complete solution set and > ride on top of that. For example, the w3c approach is one wagon > to hitch up to. After we hitch up to a wagon, we should commission > a working group to work out any additional details and the rest of > us agree to live with it if they do a decent job. Anything that results in an editor that supports what modern word processors support (collapsible outline views, in particular) is fine with me; right now, that means Word. > This is not a job for a committee-of-the-whole ... I'd be > perfectly happy to let the IAB or IESG pick a religion and let > a working group define the rules of procedure. And, again, > piggybacking on the w3c religion seems like a really easy > way out of this never-ending debate. I'd prefer if they pick an output format that is supported by a number of editors, rather than forcing an editing system designed, implemented, and supported by amateurs on me. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf