[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
touch at isi.edu
Sat Jul 7 08:44:05 PDT 2012
On 7/6/2012 11:27 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-07-06 23:36, Joe Touch 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.
>> It is - xml-based requires an XML editor, or editing source. At least a
>> few of us would like to be able to use a modern editor without editing
>> source - even if it requires a post-processing step for submission.
> Not true. Once you do need an additional processing step, you can have
> that step xml2rfc source as well
This is different from what was suggested.
Here's the issue:
- it's fine to allow xml2rfc use by authors if it can be
converted into the submission format (there was never an
issue with that)
- it's a bad idea to *require* xml2rfc as that submission
format, since it includes too much structure and information
that has not been justified as necessary, and might not
exist in reasonable alternative author formats (e.g.,
structured HTML) - so translation from structured HTML
to xml2rfc would require manual intervention
More information about the rfc-interest