[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
hallam at gmail.com
Fri Jul 6 15:33:31 PDT 2012
As a practical matter, I think having a conversion from the XML to
HTML that does not discard information will prove very useful.
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> 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.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest