[rfc-i] RFC editing tools
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Dec 7 09:49:14 PST 2012
On Dec 7, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> Not is coding the parser for this representation harder, but it also creates the possibility of unanticipated gaps in the specification that we will discover later. The simpler the format is, the less likely it is that we will run into that problem.
How is this any different than for XML? We are still finding places where xml2rfc fails with "unanticipated gaps". We're humans writing complex documents: we will find edge cases almost reflexively.
> You also propose that the IETF define new HTML extensions to handle the xml2rfc author tag and sub-tags, which is really out of scope for the IETF—that's more of a w3c thing.
Say what?!?! Every organization creates its own extensions to HTML just like they create their own schema for XML. Saying that it is out of scope for the IETF to make IETF-specific extensions is crazy.
> Of course we can write up a doc and present it to the w3c, but how likely is it to gain adoption and wind up in a browser?
Which extensions did Joe propose that need to be in every browser, or any of them for that matter?
More information about the rfc-interest