julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Apr 9 03:21:20 PDT 2012
On 2012-04-08 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.
> 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
That is called "XHTML". We could use that.
> 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.
This is misleading. HTML is inspired by SGML, so it never required
closing all tags. It's a feature. (And, no, I don't like it at all :-).
HTML5 *does* define error recovery for broken input, but that's an
aspect we could ignore as long as we require "validity" (HTML4) or
"conformance" (HTML5) of files.
> 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.
Again: the output of rf2629.xslt has been designed to be a simple and
straightforward use of HTML. I'd like to hear feedback on the format,
see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc6266.html> for an example.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest