[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jul 6 09:35:17 PDT 2012
On 2012-07-06 18:17, 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.
> That it hasn't been done is a clear proof that rendering RFCs / I-Ds
> on Smartphones is just a Scapegoat. If someone really cared about it,
> he could easily have shipped several alternative solutions to this
> problem by now, as a frontend-side reformatting ("app"), or as
> an alternative rfcmarkup that provides floatable HTML, rather than
> spending time on this discussion.
No, it just shows that it's very hard to heuristically detect
indentations, list items, and artwork.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest