[rfc-i] RFC editing tools
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Dec 11 09:23:24 PST 2012
On 2012-12-11 18:14, Nico Williams wrote:
> 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 will likely continue to work in xml2rfc++, and support the desired
HTML output in rfc2629.xslt.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest