[rfc-i] RFC editing tools
mellon at fugue.com
Thu Dec 6 11:20:53 PST 2012
On Dec 6, 2012, at 1:26 AM, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> As is carefully-crafted HTML. Perhaps even more so, because there will be
> a larger corpus for these archaeologists to work from.
HTML isn't regular, doesn't support typesetting, and has a lot of domain-specific functionality that's not germane to RFCs. And it looks exactly like XML to the untrained eye. So I don't think there's any reason to prefer HTML over XML as the representation, although I think HTML is a fine presentation target.
That said, I would definitely agree that it would be good to use HTML tag names where appropriate in the XML, instead of inventing incompatible tag names, because as you say, this would make it easier to reverse engineer. In that sense, xml2rfc may not be the ideal input format—it definitely has some clunky bits.
More information about the rfc-interest