[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Fri Jul 6 15:44:38 PDT 2012


I think that all the rational presentation/authoring requirements
raised can actually be met quite simply by simply flipping the
internal RFC editor format from nroff to XML2RFC.

Let people generate their text any way they feel like provided that it
captures all the information necessary and they can convert it into
XML2RFC for submission.

Let people read their documents in any format that XML2RFC can convert into.


That then just leaves us with the question of included documents in
other formats (drawings, images, code etc) but I am happy to leave
those for a phase 2 even.


On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> As a practical matter, I think having a conversion from the XML to
>> HTML that does not discard information will prove very useful.
>
> +1. Fortunately, that is trivial both to do and to test.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list