[rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF?
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Feb 27 02:06:19 PST 2012
On 2012-02-27 10:52, Miek Gieben wrote:
> [ 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.
I'm actually totally happy editing in XML, so I haven't tried a
front-end yet. (Note that the xml2rfc vocabulary I use for editing has
many extensions that Pandoc probably does not support).
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest