[rfc-i] RFC editing tools

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Fri Dec 7 12:16:50 PST 2012


On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> I'm not specifically advocating XML—I'd be perfectly happy with LISP sexprs.   But I suspect XML is a more practical choice.   I don't think HTML is a practical choice.

I am quite fond of saying that there's been nothing new under the sun
in data encoding/representation since S-expressions.  But there is one
thing XML does *really* well: tools like XSLT/XPath/XQuery, ... are
like LISP macros/functions like destructuring-bind, but on steroids,
taken to the nth, and well thought out.  This is valuable.  XSLT in
particular is.

At least three of the available I-D/RFC authoring/editing solutions
(including my lyx2rfc) depend XSLT.  I would not want to lose this, so
for me XML is it.  XHTML might suffice, but not HTML -- it has to be
XML, and all metadata needs to be available programmatically and
unambiguously.  The only exception I'd make here is for formats which
can losslessly be converted to XML in some schema.

Nico
--


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list