[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
hallam at gmail.com
Sat Jul 7 08:24:15 PDT 2012
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-07-07 17:02, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> In practice it is very easy to find HTML editors that do not muck
>> stuff up as all of us who have produced W3 drafts know.
> Example? I'd like to try.
I usually use Visual Studio, there is a free version that is Web only.
>> It is also very easy to take HTML and throw out the crap using a tool
>> that removes unwanted stylesheets, etc etc. You can even use Word with
>> that approach.
> Throwing unwanted stuff out is indeed easy. What's a bit harder is to
> normalize the document structure.
I don't see what you mean there.
Now it might be difficult to do some stuff in XSLT but I would never
use that. It is as complex as a real programming language so why not
use a real programming language.
>> The XML2RFC format is not a good document format. The designer seems
>> to have decided to do things their way without any good reason not to
>> follow the HTML approach. So things that are easy in HTML, like lists
>> require reference to manuals. Why they chose to use <t> instead of <p>
>> and so on? Its like the inventor was deliberately trying to make the
>> thing different and hard.
> I wasn't around, but my guess is that if you name things the same way,
> people will assume they are the same.
And what would be wrong with that? A lot of effort went into HTML 2.0.
There is a reason that the headings are specified the way they are
rather than as recursive containers.
I think it was a huge dose of NIH.
More information about the rfc-interest