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

Miek Gieben miek at miek.nl
Mon Feb 27 01:52:14 PST 2012


[ Quoting <julian.reschke at gmx.de> at 10:45 on Feb 27 in "Re: [rfc-i] RFC form..." ]
> >FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is,
> >IMO, DOA.
> 
> Yes, there are conflicting requirements.
> 
> Other requirements are:
> 
> - free editing tools need to be available
> 
> - the editing format must work well with a revision control system
> (textual diffs that do not contain more than was actually changed by
> the author)

May I suggest something like Pandoc? (http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/)

I'm using this myself to create XML that xml2rfc likes
(https://github.com/miekg/pandoc2rfc). You still need to fiddle with some
XML, but the diffs are clean, it's easy to type and powerful.

Regards
    Miek Gieben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120227/29c1801e/attachment.sig>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list