[rfc-i] RFC editing tools

Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) jhildebr at cisco.com
Sat Dec 8 23:06:52 PST 2012


On 12/7/12 11:52 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:

>> What Joe's draft has started to document is what an RFC should look
>>like when it's presented for viewing in a browser, not what the
>>canonical format of an RFC should be.
>
>It's kind of rude for you to state what Joe meant, given that he has said
>the opposite.

I don't take that as rude, just as Ted's opinion about the fitness for
purpose for what the prototype format looks like.

I see his point, but respectfully disagree.  One of the goals I have for
our future state is that it be possible to have the authoring format,
submission format, canonical format, re-editing format, and primary
consumption format all use one common syntax for those authors and
tool-writers that so desire.  Since I strongly believe that the primary
consumption format will be HTML, and that more people in the potential
author community will be able to generate something that can be handed to
HTML tooling than any of the other suggested formats, I think that format
should be HTML.

There are a lot of folks that have argued for their existing toolset
because *they* are used to it.  However, if we lose sight of the needs of
the people who have not yet written an RFC or individual submission, it's
going to continue to be hard to attract those authors to submit documents.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand





More information about the rfc-interest mailing list