[rfc-i] RFC editing tools
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Dec 11 09:08:24 PST 2012
On 2012-12-11 17:58, Stefan Santesson wrote:
> On 12/11/12 4:56 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Well, HTML is trivially converted to XHTML, which is XML and has a
>> schema, so I'm not sure what the problem is. There are also
>> off-the-shelf HTML editors (not that I ever would use one :-).
> I guess this is my point.
> XHTML is already associated with a schema.
> The question is if that schema is suitable as source format to capture
> everything that a source format need to capture.
> If that is so, then I'm wrong and forget everything I said.
Let's phrase it this way: I, too, see the benefit of a format tuned to
capture what we want in RFCs (thus xml2rfc++). On the other hand, many
people are scared by XML, thus a profile of HTML + metadata conventions
(-> Joe's proposal).
If we can convert between these two, we don't have to decide :-)
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest