[rfc-i] xml2rfc vs html and others
John R Levine
johnl at taugh.com
Fri Jul 6 13:16:38 PDT 2012
> 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
Oh, I agree there, too. The XML is the real document, the converted
versions are display formats. I expect there will be lots of ways get the
XML, ranging from us weenies who edit it in emacs to XML structure editors
to translations from Word to hand markup. The production staff does hand
markup of text drafts now, this wouldn't be a lot of new work, although we
could save them time if we'd get over our irrational fear of XML.
> 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.
Perhaps, although I still see nothing that is likely to work as well as
Constrained HTML might have minor advantages as a display format but it
would be a nightmare as a working format. HTML suffers from being both a
structure language and a display language. Every HTML editor I've seen
only treats it as a display language, i.e., add arbitrary crud to the HTML
to try and make the display look OK. I honestly don't know how you expect
to create HTML that meets the constraints other than by hand editing.
Editing HTML by hand is definitely not an improvement over doing it in XML.
XML wysiwyg editors, while often klunkier, use DTDs and adhere to the
DTD's structure. You don't have to use one (I don't), but they exist as a
proof of concept.
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
More information about the rfc-interest