[rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF?

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Sun Feb 26 19:10:53 PST 2012


>> I think we all agree that whatever the canonical format is, we'll want
>> tools to translate from whatever editors people like, but it's worth
>> mentioning.
>
>FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, 
>IMO, DOA.

We seem to have a severe confusion here between tools and document formats.

I think everyone agrees that authors of drafts can use whatever tools
they want to write and edit them, and we should ensure that our choice
of future tools and formats lets that continue. But that has
practically no bearing on what formats we eventually decide to use.

Let's imagine we like the xml2rfc profile of XML.  There are screen
editors like xxe that can edit it directly.  If people like MS Word,
it wouldn't be particularly hard to write tools to translate between
DOC or DOCX and xml2rfc, and if there were sufficient interest, we
could commission an add-in that let Word read and write xml2rfc
directly.  Personally, I edit the XML in epsilon using an XML
highlightimg mode because it's faster than screwing around trying to
get allegedly user friendly editors to create the right markup.

On the other hand, even though DOC and DOCX are semi-open (OpenOffice,
Abiword, Libreoffice, etc.) there's obvious reasons that neither is
appropriate for an archival format.

R's,
John




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list