[rfc-i] support for tables (from RFC 5892)

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Tue Apr 24 22:56:50 PDT 2012


Right.   The HTML table model is nontrivial and it would be optimistic
to assume you could reproduce them in any other output format unless
you went through HTML first (which would be a plausible way to
generate PDF) - but classic-lineprinter output might simply be
impossible.

 -T

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-04-25 02:53, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>
>> On 2012/04/25 7:13, Larry Masinter wrote:
>>>
>>> This is also a good example of "Better support for tables". While
>>> XML2RFC supports tables, the ASCII output is hard to read.
>>
>>
>> The other problem with the XML2RFC table support is that it is very
>> different from HTML tables. This should be fixed.
>>
>> Regards, Martin.
>> ...
>
>
> Back when this was added to xml2rfc, there was a big argument about the
> syntax. (I lost.)
>
> That being said, a concern is that if we add too much complexity, it will
> become quite hard to generate anything *but* HTML.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list