[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
mrex at sap.com
Fri Jul 6 09:49:40 PDT 2012
Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.
>> That it hasn't been done is a clear proof that rendering RFCs / I-Ds
>> on Smartphones is just a Scapegoat.
Maybe I should have used the term "Red herring" or "Straw man" here.
>> 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.
Nope, it isn't hard at all.
there are no URLs inside the TXT documents that rfcmarkup feeds,
and the heuristics that rfcmarkup uses are anything but rocket science.
The solution doesn't have to be perfect, mind you.
There are several thousand documents out there for which there simply
is no alternative to doing just that -- if one really cared about
rendering them differently from how they're rendered now.
But very obviously, nobody really cares about solving the problem
how to render what is there differently. Instead, what I'm seeing
here is significant amount of lobbying to kill an existing submission
format and several user-friendly existing authoring tools along with it.
More information about the rfc-interest