[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Fri Jul 6 20:32:17 PDT 2012
On 7/6/12 2:12 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>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.
Semantically, yes. However, I assert that there are more people that are
comfortable with the basics of HTML than the basics of XML2RFC. It's kind
of a moot point since the HTML will be so easy to generate from the
XML2RFc format, people that like using it should be able to continue to do
More information about the rfc-interest