[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
touch at isi.edu
Fri Jul 6 14:36:30 PDT 2012
On 7/6/2012 1:12 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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
>> Getting it into a relatively-close approximation through any of these
>> means is pretty easy, and then the cleanup tools can stiffen up the
>> 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.
It is - xml-based requires an XML editor, or editing source. At least a
few of us would like to be able to use a modern editor without editing
source - even if it requires a post-processing step for submission.
More information about the rfc-interest