[rfc-i] RFC editing tools

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Dec 11 11:43:09 PST 2012


On Dec 11, 2012 12:38 PM, "Ted Lemon" <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> > The RFC Editor should do this by funding software development. If they
do not, then things get ugly quickly.
>
> A tool to convert between two canonical formats is a waste of effort.
We should have just one canonical format.   I happen to prefer XML, for
reasons I've stated, but I would rather we settled on HTML than that we
decided not to choose.

I read what Paul wrote to be that the RFC-Editor should fund development of
a canonical format ASAP so we can avoid having a surfeit of formats.  XML
is a great canonical format because it's easy to use XSLT to do most if the
heavy lifting in converting to/from any other formats, so most of us seen
to agree that the canonical format should be XML.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20121211/328a853d/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list