[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jul 6 13:12:05 PDT 2012
On 2012-07-06 22:09, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 7/6/12 1:58 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2012-07-06 21:38, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>> Constrained HTML.
>> So what tool is going to generate that subset of HTML?
> - By hand isn't so bad
> - New XSLT from XML2RFC (lots of existing authors may start here)
> - HTML editor that knows a little about CSS classes
> - Markdown-ish (bet this ends up being popular, if someone writes it)
> - An in-browser UI (this is possible, but a ton of work to be good enough)
> Getting it into a relatively-close approximation through any of these
> means is pretty easy, and then the cleanup tools can stiffen up the syntax
> to be more regular.
Understood and agreed.
The point I was trying to make is that just because "constrained HTML"
is HTML that doesn't mean that you can use an off-the-shelf HTML editor,
without further processing. At which point the difference to xml2rfc
isn't that big anymore.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest