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

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri Jul 6 15:53:34 PDT 2012


-1

As per my other note.

My concern is that XML2RFC XML requires more information than structured 
HTML, and that this would unnecessarily limit authors.

Joe


On 7/6/2012 3:44 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 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
>
>
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list