Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:26:25PM +0100, Rui Paulo wrote:
> > Yes, this makes sense. Can you raise the question at board@ or core@,
> > please ?
> 
> I'm not sure I have seen all the early stages of this, but IIRC the idea
> to only have one copy of the file came from www@ (in reply to board@ asking
> to include the file in the web page somehow).

And I (can't speak for the rest of www) still believe that it is possible.
Excuse me for the herecy, but I really see no troubles with ROADMAP
in XML format. All that we need is a three forms of data representation:o

	1. paragraphs (para)
	2. headers (section, title)
	3. lists (itemizedlist, orderedlist, listitem)

Ah, I forget to mention some stuff like <email> and <ulink>. Just
take a look to the following example:

	<listitem>
	  <para>Review TCP/IP developments</para>
	  <itemizedlist>
	    <listitem>
	      <para>Fix NewReno</para>
	      <para>Responsible: mycroft</para> <para>ETA: (3.0)</para>
	    </listitem><listitem>
	      <para>Add SACK support to the kernel.</para>
	      <para>Responsible: kurahone</para> <para>ETA: (3.0)</para>
	    </listitem><listitem>
	      <para>Look into RFC3168 (ECN,
		<ulink url="http://www.icir.org/floyd/ecn.html"/>)
		and other "recent" and current TCP/IP research. Adapt our
		stack to the more modern world.</para>
	      <para>Responsible: TBD</para> <para>ETA: ?</para>
	    </listitem>
	  </itemizedlist>
	</listitem>

And if this example still too complex to developers, I'll really start thinking
on some tool to convert a wiki-like syntax to XML.

--
Mishka.

P.S. I'm working with documents in XML every day and prove me,
after some practice you will not accept any other docs than XML.

P.P.S. Seems that Jeremy's idea about completely new format for htdocs
partialy have a sense.