[rfc-i] Data point [Re: Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt]

[Joe Touch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> 
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> Pushing everyone to write in xml2rfc is just as bad as pushing everyone
>> to write in Word in that regard. I see no reason to support either.
> 
> 
> (xml2rfc is a format.  Word is a tool.

And a format (.doc/.docx - the latter of which is xml, FWIW).

> You might not be intending the
> comparison as confusing the difference, but I'm not sure the distinction
> has been fully clear in everyone's discussion.

xml2rfc forces users into a set of tools. so does Word (.doc) format. so
does .txt, and UTF8.

There is some intended overlap in how I've been comparing these.

> The proposal for xml2rfc is for it to be *in addition* and not an
> exclusive choice. 

It's already supported in-addition during submission. If you're
proposing that the RFC-Editor shift from .nroff to xml2rfc, we'd have a
much larger set of issues to consider.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjuMzUACgkQE5f5cImnZrvSAACgyCF+KD8nq7UX5CrllCstRNr4
EWcAmgPotQejHNo9MnYAT4Gk3WlhWndU
=SQ1d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----