[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sat Jul 7 08:19:37 PDT 2012
On Jul 6, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> 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
However, no one here is proposing that the canonical format for RFCs use just "the basics of HTML". All of the proposals so far have included at least two significant features that only regular HTML users and experts would consider "basic": attributes and the mandatory closing of tags. Probably more than 90% of HTML users in the IETF do not normally use attributes, and would have to be taught the rules for them, particularly quoting rules. Probably only half of HTML users in the IETF know that you really should close all your tags.
I propose that once you bring in those critical features, editing XML and HTML become much more similar.
More information about the rfc-interest