[rfc-i] RFC editing tools
nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Dec 11 09:14:53 PST 2012
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> 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 :-)
And you and I know that we can convert between them :) Even so there
is one thing to decide: whether anyone will put resources into
implementing one or the other. If Joe's approach "wins", do we stop
bothering with xml2rfc++? And vice-versa.
I think the answer is "yes" because in the first case Joe's approach
will likely only cover authoring and typesetting to HTML, but not
other formats, while xml2rfc++ can cover those other formats; while in
the other case Joe (and myself, and others) will likely still keep his
(and my, and others') preference for his (and my, and others') editor
(e.g., LyX, in my case). BUT, if we decide that we only want
typesetting to HTML -with all other formats being typeset from HTML-
then Joe's approach has a lot going for it.
More information about the rfc-interest