[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jul 6 09:34:11 PDT 2012


On 2012-07-06 17:47, Martin Rex wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> Martin Rex wrote:
>>>
>>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Martin Rex wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Moving away from plain ASCII is magnitudes easier than moving away from
>>>>> XML, which is why ASCII is a pretty good choice in the first place.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> If moving away from plain ASCII was "easy", it would have happened already.
>>>
>>> rfcmarkup, which produces one HTMLized version of ASCII TXT RFCs and IDs
>>> accessible under http://tools.ietf.org/html/
>>> did not need months of mailing list discussions to come into existence,
>>> and did not require I-D authors to dump their existing authoring tools.
>>
>> ...and it does only a subset of what we're trying to get.
>>
>> Yes, you've told us numerous times that it would be easy to extend to do
>> more, but so far nobody has done that.
>
> Creating a HTML-variant that permits floating would be easy, and
> it would be even easier for the RFCs from the RFC Editors nroff interim
> format.

Or the XML format. Wait, we have that already.

> The output of "man ls" on a Linux box adapts to the size of the window,
> and is based on nroff source.

I know.

> For more than a decade, doing "man ls" on an IBM AIX machine (TTY with SSH)
> resulted in a very difficult to read output, because IBM did neither ship
> their man pages in nroff format, nor did they include a tool that created
> any sensible output format.

So?

> ...

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list