On 18.03.2010 20:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 mrt 2010, at 2:43, Richard Barnes wrote:
+1
Making the XML normative would be an abomination.
The XML in itself can't be interpreted by a human to the level needed to create a compliant implementation, although it deceptively looks like maybe it could. Of course human readability also doesn't exist for pretty much anything other than text or the simplest of HTML, in itself this isn't a show stopper.
That is simply incorrect, which can easily be checked by looking at the
XML source of a spec.
But there is no standard way of converting xml2rfc into something that humans can interpret unambigously. Practically, the only way to do this is with the xml2rfc tool, which is non-standard, only partially documented and very hard to run for most people. There have also been times during which the released version was unable to convert the XML files that were actually being used inside the IETF.
Again incorrect. There is at least one other implementation that can be
used by everybody who's got a current browser (which means, everybody),
assuming that the source file actually is valid, and doesn't use
non-standard extensions (as opposed to what RFC 2629 defines).
And of course there are no existing RFC for which there is an xml2rfc XML file that you can run through xml2rfc and obtain the exact ASCII version of that RFC. Older RFCs are formatted in ways which are completely incompatible with xml2rfc, so it would be impossible to have all RFCs be available in one format if XML is adopted for future RFCs.
Yes. How is that a problem, exactly? Just don't try to change the past.
If we really want to do something in this space first of all we need to agree on the problem, then on the requirements and THEN we can have a useful discussion. So far the only thing I hear is assertions offered without any foundation that the current format is problematic, while every personal computer operating system sold (or given away for free) the past decade can display it without the need to install additional software. That's a pretty good result for files which date back as long as 40 years. Good luck finding any other document format of the same age with that property.
That may be true, but that features comes with drawbacks.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf