[rfc-i] RFC editing tools

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Tue Dec 11 12:23:40 PST 2012


>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).

I have to say that the objections to xml often seem to boil down to
"it sucks" without any useful explanatory detail.

The reason I would strongly prefer an xml to html format is that
everyone agrees that xml is a strongly typed structured document
markup language, while html can be anywhere from that to a low level
way to add font changes to text.

Any xml tool is going to maintain the structure in an xml document,
while html editors run the gamut from beautiful structure, to crud for
which the response to complaints is "nothing's wrong, it looks fine in
IE 6."  So if we were to use html, we'd be in for endless pain with
people using inappropriate tools.

Yes, we can say "don't do that."  Good luck.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list