[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
so.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list