[rfc-i] Section structure, was: RFC editing tools
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Dec 7 10:23:43 PST 2012
On 2012-12-07 18:40, Nico Williams wrote:
> That's easy: all the front and back matter metadata tags, like
> <author>, <organization>, <reference>. And, of course, <rfc> itself.
> That said, I agree that for the meat of a document (the contents, the
> text) HTML is fine, and it's rather annoying that xml2rfc uses <t>
> where HTML uses <p>, and so on. If I hadn't internalized it so well
> by now I'd have much harsher words than just "annoying"; for new users
> xml2rfc must feel like so much a result of NIH syndrome, like so much
> gratuitous torture. Here it may be that the only material addition
> xml2rfc has to bring to the table is <artwork>, and then only because
> we like (well, I do, anyways) ASCII art.
> If we're going to use HTML as the basis for the schema we might as
> well stop nesting <section>s and go back to <h2>, <h3>, ... <hN>.
> (Figuring out how to convert from the latter to the former in XSL took
> a fair bit of effort when writing lyx2rfc!)
But then you loose information, which will be hard to recover (much
harder than the other way around).
You may want to check the mailing list archives for a previous epic
thread about this topic.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest