[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 09:57:06 PDT 2012


On 2012-07-06 18:49, Martin Rex wrote:
> ...
>> 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,

What does this have to do with URL^HIs?

> and the heuristics that rfcmarkup uses are anything but rocket science.

Indeed. Also, they are not sufficient.

> The solution doesn't have to be perfect, mind you.

If it only works something like 90% of the time, using the output will 
quickly get annoying. Luckily, we don't have to when the source RFC 
exists in a more expressive format.

> 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.

Believe me, I do care a lot. To the point that I have converted most of 
the historic RFCs I need to xml format.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list