[rfc-i] RFC editing tools
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Dec 7 10:25:17 PST 2012
On Dec 7, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>> Which extensions did Joe propose that need to be in every browser, or any of them for that matter?
> Joe is proposing making big sacrifices in order to present RFCs in the browser.
Err, that didn't answer my question. Is there one or more extensions that you think need to be visible in browsers? I don't see any "extensions", just RFC-specific element IDs. Unless I'm missing something, none of those need to be understood by a browser.
> So all of the metadata needs to work—that is, needs to actually show up when you visit the document in the browser—or else the sacrifices are for naught.
That's not true: the metadata will be processed by the RFC Editor to be made available in the RFC itself. It's just like xml2rfc, except that the input is something that you could view most of in a browser to start with.
> Of course any organization can propose extensions to HTML, but these are extensions with a very small target audience. Why would we expect them to wind up in W3C standards? Why would we expect browser vendors to implement them?
Again: please show an example of "them" so we can understand what you are objecting to.
More information about the rfc-interest