[rfc-i] HTML, was: Re: draft-rfc-image-files-03
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Sun Apr 8 15:10:31 PDT 2012
On 8 Apr 2012, at 23:53 , Paul E. Jones wrote:
>> That being said, my current favorite idea is something HTML-based, and I
>> can't see any flaws in that. :-)
> I would agree with you if we can agree on the specific syntax.
Of course. But if we can agree on HTML as a way forward and how we should handle non-ASCII characters and images, I think it wouldn't be too hard to hammer out the syntax. A lot could be imported directly from the XML2RFC format.
> Personally, I prefer HTML to be compliant with XML where there is closure on
> all tags. I appreciate that HTML5 allows people to be "sloppy" with HTML
> for the benefit of the masses who might write HTML, but I would hope the
> IETF can require text that is not so loose in style.
For RFCs, absolutely. For drafts I don't think this should be a show stopper.
> Regardless of my preferences, HTML is definitely a very good replacement for
> plain ASCII text files. With a well-defined structure and syntax, this
> would also allow us to convert to whatever the great format might be one
> day. This is one thing that cannot be said (entirely) of the older ASCII
> RFC documents.
Right. HTML also displays on pretty much everything out of the box, and you can hide metadata in it that may not be displayed most of the time but is still there to be scraped by tools that need it.
More information about the rfc-interest