[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Fri Jul 6 12:55:54 PDT 2012
On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:49 , John Levine wrote:
>> Constrained HTML.
> So long as there's a mechanical two-way conversion to the XML that the
> rest of us use that fully preserves the semantics in both directions,
> that's OK with me.
I'm fine with people using XML2RFC to generate a new RFC format, but I think requiring these to be converted back into XML2RFC is too constraining.
I would even prefer the situation where we require XML2RFC source along with the RFCng during a transition phase (that could take a year or two) over the two-way conversion requirement.
More information about the rfc-interest